grauzone wrote:
> Daniel Keep wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>> If you're going to do that, you really should make the it a scope class
>> to ensure you never accidentally let the GC try to delete it.
>>
>> I (and a few others) petitioned what feels like years ago for a simple
>> argument to dtors to distinguish between deterministic destruction
>> (delete/scope) and automatic destruction (GC). Never gained any ground,
>> sadly.
>
> I think it'd be even better to make them different functions. The
> finalizer could just be a virtual function called finalize(). Really,
> the differences between proper destructors and finalizers should be
> large enough to justify separate functions.
>
> Or even better, ditch finalizers and their wacky semantics (which make
> them quite useless anyway), and invent something like notify-able
> weakpointers. D already provides basic support for this
> (Object.notifyRegister()), but I think in Phobos 1.0 it's a bit buggy.
> There were some issues with race conditions and locking.
Personally, I'd be happy if I could get this to work:
class Foo : Disposable
{
void dispose()
{
// do cleanup
}
~this(bool deterministic)
{
if( deterministic )
{
if( ! isDisposed )
dispose;
}
else if( ! isDisposed )
throw new DisposeException("You forgot to dispose, you thick
burke!");
}
}
-- Daniel
