On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 19:58:32 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 2/20/23 1:50 PM, Etienne wrote:
On Monday, 20 February 2023 at 02:50:20 UTC, Steven
Schveighoffer wrote:
See Adam's bug report:
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23627
So, according to this bug report, the implementation is
allocating a closure on the GC even though the spec says it
shouldn't?
The opposite, the delegate doesn't force a closure, and so when
the variable goes out of scope, memory corruption ensues.
I've been writing some betterC and the lazy parameter was
prohibited because it allocates on the GC, so I'm wondering
what the situation is currently
It shouldn't. Now, lazy can't be `@nogc` (because that's just
what the compiler dictates), but it won't actually *use* the GC
if you don't allocate in the function call.
I just tested and you can use lazy parameters with betterC.
-Steve
The @nogc issue might be what might be why it didn't work for me.
I use it because it's easier to work with betterC but perhaps I
should avoid writing @nogc code altogether
Thanks for the info!
Etienne
