On Saturday, 29 August 2015 at 13:43:33 UTC, cym13 wrote:
But that introduce accidentally correct design when the
destructor is called by GC, and avoids a leak. This is
arguably worse than the initial problem.
I'd like to see a concrete example of this, it seems I'm
missing something...
Example 1:
You forget to release Resource A. The GC happen to call A
destructor that releases it. But GC destructors are not
guaranteed to happen.
See http://dlang.org/class.html ("The garbage collector is not
guaranteed to run the destructor for all unreferenced objects").
Example 2:
Resource A depends on Resource B. You forget to release either.
The GC happens to call A and B destructors in the right order, by
chance. A new D release changes this order later.
