== Quote from Don ([email protected])'s article > Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > >> If anything, I'm inclined to say that we assume that the postblit is > >> O(1) and > >> let the programmer worry about any inefficiencies. We can point out > >> that anything > >> worse that O(1) will be a performance problem, but it seems to me that > >> any > >> attempt to either accomodate arbitrary cost postblit constructors or > >> to try and > >> use any kind of scheme which forces programmers to write postblits in > >> a certain > >> way is too complicated and doomed to failure. And even if it works, it > >> will be > >> highly annoying to deal with. > > > > It sure is annoying, but it does work. > > > > Don, can you estimate how difficult it would be to convert BigInt to a > > refcounted implementation? > At the moment, I think it's impossible. > Has anyone succesfully implemented refcounting in D? As long as bug 3516 > (Destructor not called on temporaries) remains open, it doesn't seem to > be possible. > Is that the only blocker, or are there others?
Can someone please clarify something for me? I thought BigInt was already COW (though I guess COW w/o ref counting is still pretty inefficient).
