On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:15:50PM +0200, QAston wrote: > On Thursday, 23 May 2013 at 20:07:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer > wrote: > >While I'm not specifically addressing the ability or not to > >disable the GC (I agree D has problems tehre), deprecating the > >delete operator does NOT preclude manual memory management. > > > >The problem with delete is it conflates destruction with > >deallocation. Yes, when you deallocate, you want to destroy, but > >manual deallocation is a very dangerous operation. Most of the > >time, you want to destroy WITHOUT deallocating (this is for cases > >where you are relying on the GC). > > > >Then I think Andrei also had a gripe that D had a whole keyword > >dedicated to an unsafe operation. > > > >You can still destroy and deallocate with destroy() and GC.free(). > > > >-Steve > > Yes, I know the rationale behind deprecating delete and i agree with > it. But from newcomer's point of view this looks misleading - not > everyone has enough patience (or hatered towards c++) to lurk inside > mailing lists and official website shows the deprecated way of doing > things: http://dlang.org/memory.html . IMO manual memory management > howto should be in a visible place - to dispell the myths language > suffers from. Maybe even place in to the malloc-howto in Efficency > paragraph of main website.
Please file a bug on the bugtracker to update memory.html to reflect current usage. Misleading (or outdated) documentation is often worse than no documentation. T -- Lawyer: (n.) An innocence-vending machine, the effectiveness of which depends on how much money is inserted.
