Question about Object.destroy

[Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Sunday, 20 September 2015 at 18:34:37 UTC, Lambert Duijst 
wrote:
> Oh that surprises me a bit, because I read in the list of 
> deprecated features that delete is deprecated and that the 
> right thing to do is to use destroy instead.

Right. One of the benefits of destroy is that it nulls the 
reference. Once you destroy it, you aren't supposed to use it 
again*. The zombie is kept around until the GC reaps it to 
protect against dangling pointers (somewhat), but you still 
aren't actually supposed to reuse it.

* If you really want to you can cheat by making a separate local 
variable to hold it before destroy it... destroy only nulls the 
variable you pass in, but I do not recommend doing this. Instead, 
you should reconstruct the object, even if implementing an object 
pool or something.

> I use writeln("Address of s ", &s) to print the address, not 
> sure if that is correct though.

that gives you the address of the local variable, not the 
reference. For address of the reference, try `cast(void*) s`.

An Object in D is like an Object* in C++. So when you & it, you 
get a pointer to a pointer.