| But I'm not pretending that autofree isn't documented as WIP, nor am I suggesting that anybody should use anything unintended. I am simply pointing out that a single claim from the article is still relevant to how V functions today. To be more specific, the still-relevant claim is: "So forcing the value to be allocated on the heap reveals that autofree leaks the values." The post I am replying to did not say "almost none of the claims in this article are relevant now," it specifically said "none" without qualification. Maybe I am just unusual in how I use the English language, but I would unquestionably consider this to be a case where you should really qualify the word none, because otherwise it's just not true. Whether autofree is completely in alpha and intended not to be used or not, the claim from the article that it doesn't work for everything is relevant. I don't see how it couldn't be. Surely if autofree is WIP, it's no big deal to simply agree that the fact it doesn't work on heap-allocated structs is relevant to its current state? Now, to be clear, I am aware that arguing over a single extremely small point is, to some degree, missing the point of the comment I was originally replying to. But this is also just how I talk about things on the internet. If part of your claim is untrue, even to an extremely minor degree, I will point that out. This is why when I personally claim things, I almost always qualify what I am saying. (See? Even here I said "almost always," because I just naturally add qualifications so as not to overstate my case). |