On Monday, 8 November 2021 at 14:04:40 UTC, bauss wrote:
> On Monday, 8 November 2021 at 14:01:18 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>> On Saturday, 6 November 2021 at 01:45:45 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
>>> On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 17:33:54 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> On 2021-11-05 11:06, Paul Backus wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 5 November 2021 at 14:08:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>>> We never got reference counting to work in safe pure nogc code. And we don't know how. If we did, we could write a slice-like type that does everything a slice does PLUS manages its own memory. This is the real problem with containers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm pretty sure at least some of us (including Atila) know how.
>>>>
>>>> Please post the code, thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Main problem is getting reference counting to work reliably in the presence of purity and immutability.
>>>
>>> That and preventing the this pointer from escaping.
>>
>> Unless I'm missing something, `scope` and dip1000 cover that.
>
> Which he covered in his message here:
>
>> but instead we got a numerous features that don't quite work (@nogc, DIP1000, @live, ...).

That would indicate to me that dip1000 doesn't work for that purpose, which it does, unless there's something I'm not aware of that isn't an implementation bug. @live isn't, err... live yet. I talked to Amaury about his opinions on @nogc so I get where he's coming from there, but it does do what it says on the tin.

On Monday, 8 November 2021 at 14:16:03 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>>> but instead we got a numerous features that don't quite work (@nogc, DIP1000, @live, ...).
>
> That would indicate to me that dip1000 doesn't work for that purpose, which it does, unless there's something I'm not aware of that isn't an implementation bug. @live isn't, err... live yet. I talked to Amaury about his opinions on @nogc so I get where he's coming from there, but it does do what it says on the tin.

DIP1000, for instance, is unable to cover more than one level of indirection.

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 2:00 PM Mike Parker via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 1 November 2021 at 03:34:46 UTC, zjh wrote:
> >
> >
> > Manu's `...` proposal is very convenient.
>
> That DIP hasn't been accepted or rejected because it is stalled waiting for Manu. I will most likely be marking it as "Abandoned" in the near future.
>

I reached ~95% confidence it would be rejected; Walter passed a confident
pre-judgment and started doing his own thing.
I did not know how to change that, so it seemed pointless to keep beating
on it.
I don't remember what was outstanding with it now, but I remember thinking
it's fairly trivial; a couple of sentences in the DIP that people didn't
like or thought could be clearer. The implementation is large-ish (has to
deal with a lot of different nodes), but it is nicely self-contained and
works well with just one or 2 incomplete edge cases.
I still think it should be in the language, but I'm out of energy to battle
for stuff. It's up to Walter... if he wants me to work on it, I could, but
he didn't like it and went with his own thing.