I just use
scope(exit) delete buf;
Your solution seems to do a GC every time some buffer goes out
of scope, which is slooow.
I don't need scoped allocations that often. Otherwise I wouldn't
use GC.minimize ;) or wouldn't use the GC at all.
John Colvin:
> Well, for a start you're calling GC.minimize every time you
leave
> the scope, which is an expensive call.
That was my own decision and is of course not required, but I
like to clean up the wasted space. [1]
And as I said, I don't use scope allocations that often.
> Just using new and GC.free would be fine, but there is really
no
> need to burden the GC with this at all; it's a textbook case
for
> C's malloc/free.
The GC relies also on malloc / free.
Dmitry Olshansky:
> There is no such objective quality as being D'ish.
> GC.malloc/GC.free are no better then malloc/free in code style,
> readability or observable effect.
But I don't use GC.malloc / GC.free. I use new which is IMO a
lot nicer and more clean. Of course I now that new is only D
syntax for malloc but it is still more clean.
> D offers you C run-time as well. In fact it builds on top of
it.
> See also (hopefully) soon to be formally reviewed
std.allocator.
It is still C even if D offers the access to the C standard lib.
> 1. Because GC.minimize does a hell of a work to optimize the
whole GC
> heap. For starters it does collection so as to get rid of
floating
> garbage (AFAIK).
See [1]
