Hi all!
I've read the topic and I am really surprised so many engeneers
arguing for so long and not having systematic approach to the
problem.
As I see it, Walter states that there are eenvironmental errors
and program bugs, which are non-recoverable. So use exceptions
(enforce) for first ones an
The most problematic implication would be that classes with
destructors will form a hierarchy separate from Object.
What for? As i understand object's dtor does nothing, so for any
class we can determine, if dtor is empty. I don't see a problem
here.
Cycles and locks for RC are the biggest pr
Interesting, we haven't explored that. The most problematic
implication would be that classes with destructors will form a
hierarchy separate from Object.
As i understood, you want to remove dtors for non-scoped objects
completely, so all classes will be without it, except user
defined ones.
Scoped-objects + ARC on non-scoped objects with dtors + GC on
non-scoped objects w/o dtors would arguably solve the problem,
especially, is arrays of scoped objects would be considered also
scoped, or just add separate scoped arrays.
Hey I have this global variable, if I assign a value to it and
later null it, it'll call its destructor if its not referenced
anywhere else.
Which in turn would make me think ref counting would be a good
idea.
It seems, that ARC is the only way. There were idea to make all
non-scoped (in my
I've been reading all the topics with those "radical" ideas about
the GC and dtors and, honestly, i'd rather call them "insane".
After all the reading and thinking, i came to conclusion, that
what Andrey suggests is to call dtors only on stack-allocated
structs. That also implies, that one can'
I often see, that D developers say something like "remove
allocations from std lib", and it seems, that the main reason to
do it is eliminate gc calls.
What about the idea, that local objects do not use gc at all?
Maby, all temporary variables can be destroyed just like in C++,
when out of scope w
What about namespaces?
