• David Nadlinger (12/12) May 14 2014 Niko Matsakis, Mozilla employee and member of the Rust core team,
• Enamex (9/17) Jul 31 2015 How is it explicit in D? Something to do with shared/const? But

"David Nadlinger" <code klickverbot.at> writes:

Niko Matsakis, Mozilla employee and member of the Rust core team, 
published a blog post on the terminology regarding mutability and 
uniqueness in Rust yesterday: 
http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2014/05/13/focusing-on-ownership/

It's not directly related to the discussion we are currently 
having, and to most of us regulars their debate will appear to be 
somewhat trivial, as the distinction is so explicit in D and we 
don't have automatic borrowing. But maybe a look at a similar 
situation (but with different terminology) will lead to some nice 
ideas, so I figured I'd post this here.

Cheers,
David

"Enamex" <enamex+d outlook.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 14 May 2014 at 14:47:24 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
 It's not directly related to the discussion we are currently 
 having, and to most of us regulars their debate will appear to 
 be somewhat trivial, as the distinction is so explicit in D and 
 we don't have automatic borrowing. But maybe a look at a 
 similar situation (but with different terminology) will lead to 
 some nice ideas, so I figured I'd post this here.

 Cheers,
 David

How is it explicit in D? Something to do with shared/const? But 
the default-owned/borrow vs explicit unique-borrow (but `&mut`) 
in Rust /are/ explicit, while in D anything passed to a function 
is by default either a completely independent copy or a shallow 
copy of a reference that needs mutex'ing or a const-qualified 
view to be safe.

Asking, not arguing, 'cause I'm new to D and a bit confused. I 
hope replying to old topics is okay...