On 5/21/18 6:18 PM, Manu wrote:
On 21 May 2018 at 06:10, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
On 5/20/18 9:49 PM, Manu wrote:
On 20 May 2018 at 17:14, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
Yes, and only for delete.
Why? This doesn't make a lot of sense, since delete is freeing the memory,
it shouldn't matter what state the memory is left in. I would argue that
should only be done in debug mode, and actually, I wonder if some other kind
of sentinel memory pattern should be written instead.
destroy() also seems to do it.
Yes, because destroy leaves the memory available for reuse. This is
intentional.
It's uninitialised memory though, Wouldn't the same argument you made
above also apply?
Uninitialized, but allocated and usable. The difference between this and
delete is that delete is going to unallocate that memory. The next time
it's allocated, it will be overwritten with an init pattern for the new
type.
Basically, in D when you have access to memory, it should be in a valid
state.
This is a valid usage in D:
struct S
{
this(...) {...}
}
auto s = S(a, b, c);
destroy(s);
// s is now a fully initialized S ready to be constructed
s.__ctor(a, b, c);
-Steve
