On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 21:23:28 UTC, Igor wrote:
On Tuesday, 26 January 2016 at 20:17:20 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
On 1/26/16 9:20 AM, Igor wrote:
[...]
Don't do it in the destructor.
I can only imagine that you are triggering the destructor with
destroy? In this case, destroy is calling the destructor, but
then tries to zero the memory (which has already been freed).
There is a mechanism D supports (but I believe is deprecated)
by overriding new and delete. You may want to try that. It's
deprecated, but has been for years and years, and I doubt it's
going away any time soon.
A class shouldn't care how it's allocated or destroyed. That
is for the memory manager to worry about.
um? Memory manager? I am doing it manually C++ style so I don't
have to worry about the god forsaken memory manager. Why is it
so difficult? I create the object and release it when I need to.
I can replace the destroy(f) with free(inline the code) but I
don't see why that should matter. The whole point of
destructors is to do this sort of stuff. That's why they were
invented in the first place!?!
Destructors are meant to destroy the members of the object, not
the object itself. An object should be freed by the destructor of
its owner and so on, transitively.
A class should not have a hard coded dependency on malloc/free,
or the GC. You should strive to design it in such a way that the
clients of the class are free to decide how to manage its memory.
