On 22 May 2018 at 06:44, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On 5/22/18 1:01 AM, Manu wrote: >> >> On 21 May 2018 at 15:51, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d >> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 5/21/18 6:37 PM, Manu wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 21 May 2018 at 15:29, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d >>>> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Why is it reasonable to expect that the buffer after `destroy()` >>>> should be 'valid'? >>>> Who's to say that the init state is 'valid'? >>> >>> >>> >>> It's valid in that it's not garbage, and that it's not full of dangling >>> pointers. >> >> >> Ah! Dangling pointers... that might conservatively retain garbage. >> That's a good reason. > > > Well, I was thinking more along the lines of accessing memory that is no > longer valid :) A destructor can, for instance, free C malloced memory.
The memory post-destruction is invalid... nobody will access it. Accessing it should be undefined behaviour until such a time as the memory is re-constructed with a new instance...
