@Araq: Agree with all your points, I now see there should be few pain points to adopting the new memory management model and, as one who has tried to use the current GC's system cross thread, very very much to be gained; perhaps the primary pain point is that sink move semantics have changed so that the caller is in charge of destruction father than the callee - as noted a necessary change for consistency and workability in some edge cases but that is more in the nature of a design error in version 1:
> However, I'm not thinking too hard about this problem because it's further > away... Assuming by "further away", you mean the implementation of the new memory management system, do you have any estimate of how long before there is some trial development implementation we can try? As important as it is, it would really be great to have it included in version 1.0
