On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 00:29:21 +0000 Kapps via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 20 January 2015 at 18:12:27 UTC, ketmar via > Digitalmars-d wrote: > > let's see how this proposal will be rejected. will there be > > some sane > > reasons, or only the good old song about "broken code"? make > > your bets! > > Lots of functions can theoretically allocate, but don't in the > way you call them. For example, a function that checks for > invalid arguments and throws an exception if any are passed in. > It can't be @nogc because it throws, but it's perfectly valid to > call in a constructor. nothing is valid with calling even potentially allocating function in dtor. > Also, what about classes allocated with malloc/emplace that are > then destroyed/freed? that's easy: mark that destructors with proposed `@gc` attribute. this way you will explicitly tell the compiler that you know what you're doing here and taking all responsibility for your actions.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
