Also, the @nogc for destructors is specific to the current GC, and is a limitation that isn't really needed were destructors implemented properly in the current GC.
On 5/5/14, monarch_dodra via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday, 4 May 2014 at 20:49:57 UTC, bearophile wrote: >> If we keep class destructors in D, is it a good idea to require >> them to be @nogc? >> >> This post comes after this thread in D.learn: >> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/[email protected] >> >> Bye, >> bearophile > > Not sure that would be a good idea: "nogc" means "no interacting > with the GC". In no way does it prevent accessing a ressource > that itself is managed by the GC, which is what the original bug > was about. > > Furthermore, classes *may* be deterministically desroyed, and > preventing it from interacting with the GC, if only to remove > scan pointers (think RefCounted/Array) would be needlessly > restrictive. >
