On Wednesday, 28 January 2015 at 11:32:26 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
But I think GC and destructors are not a good match... so I
would personally go for performance and no destructors.
Yes. That is the bottom line.
A good match for GC is the phantom reference, which notifies you
when an
From the forum thread
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/ossuvfmqthllgdpgz...@forum.dlang.org?page=1
and the PR
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/851
I learned that allocation in a destructor isn't the only crash
case here.
The GC calls a class instance's invariant() meth
On Tuesday, 27 January 2015 at 22:46:30 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Saturday, 24 January 2015 at 23:28:35 UTC, Jerry Morrison
wrote:
On Saturday, 24 January 2015 at 15:04:47 UTC, Ola Fosheim
Grøstad wrote:
If the classes are written for RAII then the destructors have
to be called in reve
On Wednesday, 21 January 2015 at 20:32:14 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
Actually there's nothing on the documentation about class
destructors
[1] that warns about that specific issue of the current (and
default) GC.
[1] http://dlang.org/class.html#destructors
I think the docs are in need
This is the first I've heard that allocating GC memory in a
destructor will crash. That's an unexpected gotcha. I'd expect to
be able to reliably do I/O or throw an exception.
Strategy 1. Fix the GC's limitation. (One fewer pitfall to
baby-sit.)
Strategy 2. Have the compiler inform the progr
After spending hours and hours in a breadth-first scan to learn
me a D, I agree completely with the suggestions in this thread
and I'm happy to help implement them.
Caveats: I'm just now coming up to speed on D and I'm an
engineer, not a tech writer.
I think the biggest needs are:
(1) Impro
