On Saturday, 27 May 2017 at 13:32:57 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Saturday, 27 May 2017 at 10:11:38 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
3. Nobody actually cares.
That's me. I think the @attribute mess is completely broken and
mostly just ignore it.
Hm. That's a strategy, perhaps I should try it
On Saturday, 27 May 2017 at 10:11:38 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
3. Nobody actually cares.
That's me. I think the @attribute mess is completely broken and
mostly just ignore it.
That said, I do agree with you: it SHOULD work like you describe
if we want the @attributes to be meaningful.
On Monday, 22 May 2017 at 17:05:06 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
I'd like to hear what you guys think about this issue:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15246
Any thoughts?
By the absence of replies from those who (I think) should care I
conclude that either:
1. I'm saying
On Friday, 26 May 2017 at 18:58:46 UTC, Igor Shirkalin wrote:
First, why 'oblivious' function does not free Malicious object
(no matter GC or not GC).
It actually does matter. It doesn't manually release the
resources precisely because it relies on the GC. I've made it
overly explicit, but
On Friday, 26 May 2017 at 17:48:24 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
I'm sorry, I ment explicitly. I hope it is not possible.
It is very possible, and it should be possible, otherwise we
couldn't even think about deterministic destruction.
Hm, you've said it is decision of GC (see bellow), so how
On Friday, 26 May 2017 at 17:32:38 UTC, Igor Shirkalin wrote:
On Friday, 26 May 2017 at 17:17:39 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
Destructors of derived classes are called implicitly on
finalization. The net effect is that such finalization adopts
the weakest set of attributes among all the
On Friday, 26 May 2017 at 17:17:39 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
Destructors of derived classes are called implicitly on
finalization. The net effect is that such finalization adopts
the weakest set of attributes among all the destructors it
calls.
I'm sorry, I ment explicitly. I hope it is
On Friday, 26 May 2017 at 17:08:40 UTC, Igor Shirkalin wrote:
On Monday, 22 May 2017 at 17:05:06 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
I'd like to hear what you guys think about this issue:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15246
[...]
If your destructor is not @safe and @nogc, why not to
On Monday, 22 May 2017 at 17:05:06 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
I'd like to hear what you guys think about this issue:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15246
[...]
If your destructor is not @safe and @nogc, why not to make it be
the same or call inherited destructor implicity?
On Monday, 22 May 2017 at 17:05:06 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
Considering that the core runtime component - the GC - is the
one that usually handles finalization, it follows that *GC
collection can never be @safe*. And since collection only
happens during allocation, it follows that
I'd like to hear what you guys think about this issue:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15246
Marco argues that because "it currently doesn't work that way"
(i.e. destructors are not inherited), the bug is invalid.
However, what this means in practice is:
- destroy()/rt_finalize()
11 matches
Mail list logo
