Steven Schveighoffer: > But my immediate question is -- is it better to half-fix the problem by > committing my changes, or leave the issue alone?
I suggest to leave the issue alone. > Any solution that fixes the GC problem will have to store the typeinfo > somehow associated with the block. I think we may have more traction for > this problem with a precise GC. > > I don't think the right route is to store type info inside the struct > itself. This added overhead is not necessary for when the struct is > stored on the stack. > This is a possibility, making a struct only usable if it's inside another > such struct or inside a class, or on the stack. Given that D is a system language, and the general usefulness and ubiquity of structs, a third possibility is to do both and add an attribute to help enforcing what can't be done on PODs, or add more runtime info _on request_ where the programmer wants more flexible structs. This solves the situation, but has the disadvantage of increasing D complexity a little. Bye, bearophile
