Minas Mina:
Is this is true, why wasn't "delete" changed to behave like
destroy()?
Maybe to not silently break D code that uses delete, and allow
easier future changes in the library/runtime code that implements
destroy().
Bye,
bearophile
Thanks for the answers.
So clear() or destroy() in 2.060 be used to call the destructor,
but the actual memory of the object won't be freed, right?
Is this is true, why wasn't "delete" changed to behave like
destroy()?
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:03:09 +0200, Minas Mina
wrote:
Having a destructor and that you know when is going to be called is VERY
useful!
So by removing the "delete" keyword, what happens? We won't have a way
to destroy objects in a predictable way anymore? (I'm not talking about
structs in
On 07/29/2012 03:03 PM, Minas Mina wrote:
Having a destructor and that you know when is going to be called is VERY
useful!
So by removing the "delete" keyword, what happens? We won't have a way
to destroy objects in a predictable way anymore? (I'm not talking about
structs in any way).
Thanks
I think having the delete keyword for classes was a very good
thing, altough I don't know the problems it has for the GC and
probably other things.
Consider this scenario:
class Base
{
// ...
}
class Derived : Base
{
// ...
FILE *f;
this()
