On 2/27/2014 10:00 PM, Szymon Gatner wrote:
Still, this feels like working around a language issue, if c-tor order is defined why d-tor isn't? I am ok with non-deterministic time of execution of d-tors/finalizers but not-having parent-child d-tor order defined? That is weird.
I've never seen a garbage collected language where the GC guarantees order of destruction. There's probably a very good reason for it.
