On 8/23/2018 5:58 PM, Chris M. wrote:
Seems to be more of a warning of what issues we may face if DIP25/DIP1000 are finally implemented. It would be good to consider NLLs as well before D is committed. No point in repeating issues that have already been studied.
DIP25 waqs "finally implemented" several years ago, and works well. DIP1000 was implemented as well, it works, but it didn't cover the case of returning through a ref parameter.
There's no way to "thoroughly vet" them before implementing. It doesn't happen with C++, either, somebody builds an implementation and then people try it out.
