On Friday, 13 July 2018 at 20:03:37 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Friday, 13 July 2018 at 17:12:26 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
[...]
Hmm, thinking on this a little more...it does seem
difficult...but I don't think the problem is with immutable
borrows. I think the issue is with the exclusivity of
On Friday, 13 July 2018 at 17:12:26 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
Rust can do that because it enforces it at compile-time. A D
solution wouldn't be able to do anything more with immutable
borrows.
Hmm, thinking on this a little more...it does seem
difficult...but I don't think the problem is
On Friday, 13 July 2018 at 14:47:59 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Friday, 13 July 2018 at 12:43:20 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
The only thing I got from this are that "smooth references"
are like Rust's borrows. Which just gave me the idea to add
this member function to `Unique`:
scope ref T borrow();
On Friday, 13 July 2018 at 14:47:59 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
Sounds interesting.
I imagine you could specialize this depending on mutability.
Rust allows only one mutable borrow, but eliminated
I swear I must have dyslexia or something. Eliminated should be
unlimited.
On Friday, 13 July 2018 at 12:43:20 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
The only thing I got from this are that "smooth references" are
like Rust's borrows. Which just gave me the idea to add this
member function to `Unique`:
scope ref T borrow();
I have to think about @safety guarantees but it should
On Thursday, 12 July 2018 at 21:31:04 UTC, xray wrote:
On Thursday, 12 July 2018 at 14:13:25 UTC, Chris M. wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 22:59:50 UTC, xray wrote:
[...]
I feel the following should be disallowed, since we've moved
some checking to runtime. Ideally this system would
On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 22:46:45 UTC, xray wrote:
[ .. ]
After watching the Dconf 2018 session about "Safe Memory
Management", I told myself that, if D can guarantee an
exception in the case we delete an already deleted object, then
it's a major step forward. So let's assume that.
On Thursday, 12 July 2018 at 14:13:25 UTC, Chris M. wrote:
On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 22:59:50 UTC, xray wrote:
The message above is repost of :
https://forum.dlang.org/post/pfjotkcazuiuhlvzi...@forum.dlang.org
So I can reply to Chris M. here.
On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 at 22:59:50 UTC, xray wrote:
The message above is repost of :
https://forum.dlang.org/post/pfjotkcazuiuhlvzi...@forum.dlang.org
So I can reply to Chris M. here.
--
Yes, Chris, I got inspired by Rust :)
The message above is repost of :
https://forum.dlang.org/post/pfjotkcazuiuhlvzi...@forum.dlang.org
So I can reply to Chris M. here.
--
Yes, Chris, I got inspired by Rust :) But Rust goes too far and
it lowers the productivity.
Hi there,
I have been through the discussions on the forum regarding scope,
ownership, GC and so on. After a serious thought about this, I'd
like to discuss about a possible solution for this matter. My
concern is to know if my solution could work and to discuss the
possible impact on the
11 matches
Mail list logo