On 05/23/2013 03:21 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote: > 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 Misleading (or outdated) documentation is often worse 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 >
Agreed, even if it's just a Warning Deprecated it would be much better.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
