GC does not delete subclass

[Regan Heath]

Matthias Thurau wrote:
> "If the objects are no longer referenced, the GC will destroy those also."
> 
> Thats exact the case: In my example the GC isn t destroying that unreferenced member.

I imagine Sean was correct when he said:

"I've noticed that the most recent object to be constructed is often not 
deleted in simple test cases.  My guess is that a reference to this 
address is probably still lingering in a register somewhere, so the GC 
thinks it's still alive.  This happens in Phobos and Tango."

In which case, yes, there is a 'bug' in full collect.  Post a bug 
report, if one does not already exist. :)

Regan