On Tuesday, 10 April 2018 at 08:10:32 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

Yes. They expect it to work, and as the language is currently designed, it works perfectly well. In fact, it's even built into the language. e.g.

    int[] foo() pure
        return [1, 2, 3, 4];

    void main()
        immutable arr = foo();

compiles thanks to the fact that the compiler can guarantee from the signature of foo that its return value is unique.

Oh is that run at runtime? I thought D was just smart and did it using CTFE.

We also have std.exception.assumeUnique (which is just a cast to immutable) as a way to document that you're guaranteeing that a reference to an object is unique and therefore can be safely cast to immutable.

Can't say I've used std.exception.assumeUnique, but I guess other people have a use for it as it exists.

Would be nice if you could inject type checking information at compile time without effecting the storage class. But thats a bit OT now.

Because of how restrictive shared and immutable are, you frequently have to build them from thread-local, mutable data. And while it's preferable to have as little in your program be shared as possible and to favor solutions such as doing message passing with std.concurrency, there are situations where you pretty much need to have complex shared objects. And since D is a systems language, we're a lot more restricted in the assumptions that we can make in comparison to a language such as Java or C#.

Yeah i agree that any solution should keep in mind that D is a systems language and should allow you to do stuff when you need to.

Oh, I just had a much simpler idea that shouldn't have any issues, I'll see if that makes the GC faster to allocate. (everything else is the same)

Reply via email to