On Monday, 5 May 2014 at 18:32:30 UTC, Brian Rogoff wrote:
On Monday, 5 May 2014 at 17:46:35 UTC, Orvid King via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
Destructors and finalizers are the same thing.
That is exactly the point that I am arguing against. That they
are confused in D (or 'unified', if you think is a good thing)
I accept, but I think it's a language design error, or at least
an unfortunate omission.
Yes, if the compiler doesn't know the conceptual parent-child
relationship. e.g.: the parent-connection may close before the
child-transaction has flushed/commited. In order to prevent this
you can introduce (or deduce if you have the semantics of
ownership) parent-pointers from child to parent and only allow
parent roots to have their destructors called. The result is that
the parent-root-tree is not released until all destructible
children are ready.
Having class objects on a separate heap with finalizer support
could be reasonable if the class construct is viewed as an
application-level construct and not a system-level construct.
With a dedicated finalizer datastructure you can record
finalization dependencies at the cost of a heavier runtime.
However, I think not calling destructors at all for GC memory is
the better (more nimble) approach for a system level programming
language.
*shrug*
