On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 1:26 PM, dsimcha <[email protected]> wrote: > I've overhauled my TempAlloc proposal based on some of the suggestions I've > received. Here are the major changes: > > 1. I've reconsidered and decided TempAlloc belongs in its own Phobos module > (std.tempalloc) instead of in core.memory, mainly because it uses Phobos in > ways that aren't easy to get rid of. > > 2. Move uninitializedArray (formerly newVoid) to its own pull request for > inclusion in std.array. This keeps the TempAlloc proposal more tightly > focused. > > 3. Make alignedMalloc and friends private for now, again to make the > proposal more tightly focused. > > 4. Rename tempdup to tempArray to emphasize that is semantics are more > similar to std.array.array than .dup w.r.t. narrow strings. > > 5. Move newStack into the TempAlloc namespace and rename it > TempAlloc.newArray. > > 6. TempAlloc.newArray now handles multidimensional arrays. Its syntax is > slightly modified to accommodate this. Before: > > double[] foo = newStack!double(100); > > After: > > double[] foo = TempAlloc.newArray!(double[])(100); > > Code: > > https://github.com/dsimcha/TempAlloc > > Docs (NOT the same as the old URL): > > http://cis.jhu.edu/~dsimcha/d/phobos/std_tempalloc.html >
Just a high-level comment. Now that you moved it to its own namespace do you have a need for a struct with only static method? I think it is an abuse of the language to use struct as a way of namespacing.
