On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 16:56:10 UTC, Olivier FAURE wrote:
> I'm not saying you're wrong, but there's a different between saying "You should flesh out your idea" and "We're not going to respond formally before you submit a DIP".

Yes that's essentially my problem here.

On 2017-04-07 18:30, deadalnix wrote:

> Because it is in a ML, I cannot post a link.

Is it this mailing list: http://forum.dlang.org/group/study ?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Sunday, 2 April 2017 at 21:05:39 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> no, it won't. it is completely safe to free non-GC-owned memory with GC[0].
>
> [0] http://dpldocs.info/experimental-docs/core.memory.GC.free.html

At the cost of a GC mutex lock and metadata lookup, not too horrible, but not free either.

On 4/7/2017 9:30 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 22:11:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 4/6/2017 2:18 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>> You were asking for a link to deadalnix's original discussion, and
>>> that's the link I found (somebody else also posted a link to the same
>>> discussion).
>>
>> Only deadalnix can confirm that's what he's talking about.
>
> Yes this: https://forum.dlang.org/thread/kpgilxyyrrluxpepepcg@forum.dlang.org
> Also this: https://forum.dlang.org/post/kluaojijixhwigoujeip@forum.dlang.org

Some convenient single page links:

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/On_heap_segregation_GC_optimization_and_nogc_relaxing_247498.html

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/isolated_owned_would_solve_many_problem_we_face_right_now._212165.html


> I also produced a fairly detailed spec of how lifetime can be tracked in the
> lifetime ML. This address scope and do not require owned by itself. Considering
> the compiler infer what it calls "unique" already, it could solve the @nogc
> Exception problem to some extent without the owned part. Because it is in a ML,
> I cannot post a link.

Please repost it somewhere and a link. It's not very practical to refer to documents nobody is able to read.

On Saturday, 8 April 2017 at 20:09:49 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 4/7/2017 9:30 AM, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 22:11:55 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 4/6/2017 2:18 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>>>> You were asking for a link to deadalnix's original discussion, and
>>>> that's the link I found (somebody else also posted a link to the same
>>>> discussion).
>>>
>>> Only deadalnix can confirm that's what he's talking about.
>>
>> Yes this: https://forum.dlang.org/thread/kpgilxyyrrluxpepepcg@forum.dlang.org
>> Also this: https://forum.dlang.org/post/kluaojijixhwigoujeip@forum.dlang.org
>
> Some convenient single page links:
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/On_heap_segregation_GC_optimization_and_nogc_relaxing_247498.html
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/isolated_owned_would_solve_many_problem_we_face_right_now._212165.html
>
>
>> I also produced a fairly detailed spec of how lifetime can be tracked in the
>> lifetime ML. This address scope and do not require owned by itself. Considering
>> the compiler infer what it calls "unique" already, it could solve the @nogc
>> Exception problem to some extent without the owned part. Because it is in a ML,
>> I cannot post a link.
>
> Please repost it somewhere and a link. It's not very practical to refer to documents nobody is able to read.

My dog ate my homework.

deadalnix's a genius of marketing. He has no product, all he invested was a couple afternoons in newsgroup posts edging on rants. It's impossible to convert the incomplete ideas that he throws over the fence into spec and code. But he sells them as the perfect product. That the posts are incomplete and unclear helps because whatever problem has a solution in the future. What amazes me is he still grabs the attention of newbies in the forum.

On 09/04/17 00:35, Christophe wrote:

> My dog ate my homework.
>
> deadalnix's a genius of marketing. He has no product, all he invested
> was a couple afternoons in newsgroup posts edging on rants. It's
> impossible to convert the incomplete ideas that he throws over the fence
> into spec and code. But he sells them as the perfect product. That the
> posts are incomplete and unclear helps because whatever problem has a
> solution in the future. What amazes me is he still grabs the attention
> of newbies in the forum.

It seems to me you are posting this after the homework have already been found. To me, said homework even seem to have merit, though I acknowledge you might disagree.

Personally, I think keeping things about the proposals rather than about the person would be more beneficial to the language at large.

Shachar

On Sunday, 9 April 2017 at 07:56:08 UTC, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
> On 09/04/17 00:35, Christophe wrote:
>
>> My dog ate my homework.
>>
>> deadalnix's a genius of marketing. He has no product, all he invested
>> was a couple afternoons in newsgroup posts edging on rants. It's
>> impossible to convert the incomplete ideas that he throws over the fence
>> into spec and code. But he sells them as the perfect product. That the
>> posts are incomplete and unclear helps because whatever problem has a
>> solution in the future. What amazes me is he still grabs the attention
>> of newbies in the forum.
>
> It seems to me you are posting this after the homework have already been found. To me, said homework even seem to have merit, though I acknowledge you might disagree.

His "detailed proposal" in the mailing list is not yet recovered.  Perhaps Symantec owns the license.

> Personally, I think keeping things about the proposals rather than about the person would be more beneficial to the language at large.

The problems is with the so called "proposals".  Second class ideas nowhere near implementation. There is a better discussion in this forum, every other week.  Deadalinx should get a better image of the quality of his own work and stop shamelessly touting it.

irritate

On Sunday, 9 April 2017 at 13:16:45 UTC, irritate wrote:
> The problems is with the so called "proposals".  Second class ideas nowhere near implementation. There is a better discussion in this forum, every other week.  Deadalinx should get a better image of the quality of his own work and stop shamelessly touting it.
>
> irritate

From you, I'm taking it as a compliment. Thanks.

On Sunday, 9 April 2017 at 15:57:39 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> On Sunday, 9 April 2017 at 13:16:45 UTC, irritate wrote:
>> The problems is with the so called "proposals".  Second class ideas nowhere near implementation. There is a better discussion in this forum, every other week.  Deadalinx should get a better image of the quality of his own work and stop shamelessly touting it.
>>
>> irritate
>
> From you, I'm taking it as a compliment. Thanks.

deadalnix please open source your work!