On Sunday, 20 September 2015 at 18:50:44 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Sunday, 20 September 2015 at 18:41:18 UTC, anonymous wrote:
But that doesn't change either. I think Adam is mistaken here.
huh, I just checked the source... and you are right, it doesn't
set classes to null itself, but
On Sunday, 20 September 2015 at 17:43:01 UTC, Lambert Duijst
wrote:
Is it because:
- The GC did decide to run and cleanup memory straight after
the call to s.destroy()
- An object being in an invalid state means the program
segfaults when the object is used ?
- Another reason..
All
On Sunday 20 September 2015 20:34, Lambert Duijst wrote:
> On Sunday, 20 September 2015 at 18:21:52 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
[...]
>> So after calling destroy(s), s is null, so it segfaults when
>> you try to use it.
[...]
> Also when I print the address of s it gives me some hex number,
> but
On Sunday, 20 September 2015 at 18:21:52 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Very simple: destroy(s) (or s.destroy but i prefer destroy(s))
will set the reference it is passed to null because you aren't
supposed to use it anymore.
So after calling destroy(s), s is null, so it segfaults when
you try to
Very simple: destroy(s) (or s.destroy but i prefer destroy(s))
will set the reference it is passed to null because you aren't
supposed to use it anymore.
So after calling destroy(s), s is null, so it segfaults when you
try to use it.
On Sunday, 20 September 2015 at 18:34:37 UTC, Lambert Duijst
wrote:
Oh that surprises me a bit, because I read in the list of
deprecated features that delete is deprecated and that the
right thing to do is to use destroy instead.
Right. One of the benefits of destroy is that it nulls the
On Sunday, 20 September 2015 at 18:41:18 UTC, anonymous wrote:
But that doesn't change either. I think Adam is mistaken here.
huh, I just checked the source... and you are right, it doesn't
set classes to null itself, but does null out the vtable inside.
*ppv = null; // zero vptr
On Sunday, 20 September 2015 at 18:39:57 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Sunday, 20 September 2015 at 18:34:37 UTC, Lambert Duijst
wrote:
Oh that surprises me a bit, because I read in the list of
deprecated features that delete is deprecated and that the
right thing to do is to use destroy
Thank you, this clarified a lot.
Hi all,
I have a question about the following piece of code that I wrote
to experiment with explicit deletion of objects. I am interested
in this because, even though D has a garbage collection,
sometimes an object holds a non-memory resource, such as a file
handle. In these cases explicit
On Sunday, 20 September 2015 at 18:52:17 UTC, Lambert Duijst
wrote:
Just want to know if D protects against dangling pointers or is
this just something you should never do.
The answer is both: it tries to protect you but you still
shouldn't do it.
If we are not supposed to use
11 matches
Mail list logo
