On Monday, 25 August 2014 at 17:10:11 UTC, Etienne wrote:
People have been saying for quite a long time not to use the
`delete` keyword on GC-allocated pointers.
I've looked extensively through the code inside the engine and
even made a few modifications on it/benchmarked it for weeks
and I still can't see why it would be wrong. Wouldn't it help
avoid collections and make a good hybrid of manual
management/collected code? The free lists in the GC engine look
quite convenient to use. Any ideas?
Until custom class de/allocators are not >>really<< deprecated,
the delete keyword is not >>necessarly<< deleting from the GC.
Look at this:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Memory_Management#Explicit_Class_Instance_Allocation
You can do the same but without adding the class reference to the
GC. Then delete will call the custom deallocator which is itself
not calling the GC.
So in a way I think you're right when you say that delete could
help into manual mem managment. But that's not a reliable (over
time) situation.
