Leandro Lucarella, el 8 de agosto a las 11:22 me escribiste: > Andrei Alexandrescu, el 8 de agosto a las 08:42 me escribiste: > > Jarrett Billingsley wrote: > > >On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Andrei > > >Alexandrescu<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote: > > >>FWIW, I am trying to convince Walter to not reclaim memory in delete, but > > >>instead only call destructors. D continues C++'s mistake of conflating > > >>lifetime termination with memory reclamation. > > >Why? Instead of dangling pointers, you'd end up with pointers to > > >finalized objects, which would probably lead to harder-to-catch bugs > > >(since then you wouldn't even get a segfault). > > > > Getting a segfault == lucky > > You could easily get a segfault *if* the memory is big enough (> 1 page) > *and* if there is some support from the OS. Remove the RW permissions from > the page and when somebody wants to access it or write it... BOOM! You'll > get your segfault. > > So it's not only lucky, so can choose your own destiny ;)
But, well, that has nothing to do with putting that memory in the free list or not, it can be implemented for both approaches... -- Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUGAR COMPULSIVAMENTE ES PERJUDICIAL PARA LA SALUD. -- Casino de Mar del Plata