On Saturday, 21 July 2018 at 08:59:39 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 at 00:15, Johannes Loher via Digitalmars-d
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Saturday, 21 July 2018 at 05:59:37 UTC, Manu wrote:
> [...]
Let me give a concrete example of one of the situations
Jonathan is describing. Consider the following code:
[Snip]
Do you think this example in contrived? If yes, why?
[Snip]
There are countless ways you can construct the same bug. ref
doesn't
contact this problem in a general way, so a solution to this
class of
problem shouldn't be ref's responsibility.
[Snip]
... I don't understand how the existing rule can be so
zealously defended in the face of a
bunch of advantages, when all other constructions of the exact
same
problem are silently allowed, and literally nobody complains
about them ever!
+1000
Very well and elegantly argued Manu.
I also notice that nobody that opposes this DIP has bothered to
address the inconsistency that you raised above, i.e. the current
acceptance of the same behaviour in other constructions, but
somehow oppose this DIP for the exact same behaviour.
