On 3/18/2014 4:24 AM, Dicebot wrote:
> I was among those who has been continuously asking for cleaning Phobos
> allocations and I feel  that this modules about zero of issues I see. API
> allocations are much more important to fix than internal allocations and you
> still have not answered why you consider scopebuffer of more priority.

We can fix all the internal allocations without changing APIs and without any user disruption. This is low hanging fruit. Fixing external allocations will take longer and will have to be more carefully done.


> Also while it is important it is not at any hurry and shouldn't be done hastily
> simply because it is next discussion topic of the month.

Yes, it is important to not unnecessarily procrastinate on this. There are windows of opportunity for us. Moving the start of the window does not extend the end of it - it just means a shorter window of opportunity.

Every day counts. Schedules slip one day at a time. We lose momentum every time there's a long Reddit thread about GC problems. We cannot afford this. Although the 2 month review of ScopeBuffer is far from hasty, we can be hasty about internal non-user-visible changes to Phobos because those can be easily backed out if they prove unworthy.

There is nobody working on this besides me, other than the people working on @nogc. (if I'm wrong, let me know). It's a high priority problem. I'm ok for me doing the work, but I ask for everyone's support in getting this done.

---

In general, many issues with external GC allocations in Phobos can be resolved by changing the API so that the output goes to an OutputRange. std.string is a prime example of a module that needs to be range-ified. Any help with this would be important and appreciated. I know there are a couple people working on this with std.file, but there's plenty more needed.

(For legacy compatibility, the old APIs must remain. I do not propose breaking existing code. But the old APIs can be redone as wrappers around the range versions.)

I neglected to mention that I do appreciate your concern about process, and thank you for being adamant about it.