Advice wanted on garbage collection of sockets for c++ programmer using D

[Moritz Maxeiner via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Wednesday, 28 June 2017 at 02:13:10 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 28, 2017 01:11:35 Moritz Maxeiner via 
> Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
>> Not every class can't be finalized, so it might make sense for 
>> finalization to remain an available option.
>
> There are definitely cases where finalizers make sense. Case in 
> point: if you have a socket class, it makes perfect sense for 
> it to have a finalizer. Yes, it's better to close it manually, 
> but it will work just fine for the GC to close it when 
> finalizing the class object so long as you don't use so many 
> sockets that you run out before the GC collects them. So, 
> having a finalizer is a good backup to ensure that the socket 
> resource doesn't leak.

Yes, I think that's like the File class I presented (at least on 
Posix).
But on the other hand, since there are also cases in which 
finalization of an alive (==undestroyed) object are unacceptable 
(e.g. when it requires other GC managed objects to be alive), 
splitting them off into two separate methods and allowing to 
forbid finalization seems sensible to me.