Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote: > - Most code and most coders would be dramatically helped by > distinguishing destruction from deletion, as opposed to the wrong > conflation implicitly fostered by C++ for years.
So you just want to have control what you destruct and what you delete? For what reason? > - D is a systems language, but it's also a language in which doing the > right thing is easy and favored. Allocating no less than a keyword for a > fundamentally unsafe operation is just too much. The language can't guarantee it's unsafety. You can tell whether an object's destructor was called, but you can't tell whether a memory chunk was freed. > - The GC can't be expected to implement manual disposal anyway. This expectation is not easy to verify. If you want GC to not free, why you bother if it doesn't free? > allocating a _keyword_ for an operation that may actually end up not > doing much at all is overkill. This seems to be the only argument that's hard to object to, and it seems to be the main one. So is that it? > Honestly the top thing I'm worried right now is Walter's aversion to > breaking changes, which has turned an elbow since TDPL. I doubt that keyword saving is a good argument for a breaking change. btw can a function destruct object and nullify pointer for both rvalue and lvalue?
