GC does not delete subclass

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"Jason House" wrote
> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>
>> "Jason House" wrote
>> > I haven't tried this, but is it possible to declare class member 
>> > variables
>> > as scope so that they will get deleted when the rest of the object 
>> > does?
>> > This could save coding of custom destructors in some cases.
>>
>> Custom destructors should NEVER destroy other GC allocated objects.  the 
>> GC
>> cannot guarantee the order of collection, meaning if you have a pointer 
>> to
>> another GC allocated object, that object may have already been collected.
>>
>> There is no real reason to delete other objects in a destructor.  If the
>> objects are no longer referenced, the GC will destroy those also.  The 
>> only
>> things you should destroy in a destructor are non-GC allocated resources,
>> such as file descriptors, or memory allocated with C's malloc.
>>
>> So to answer your question: scope is not necessary as a modifier for a
>> member variable.
>
> I wasn't asking about necessary.  I was asking if it's valid.  It's easy 
> enough to construct RAII-like examples where a timely destruction of a 
> member variable would be handy.  It can also be handy when standard GC 
> operation is overridden.

Not neccessary == not implemented :)  Why implement a feature that is not 
needed?  I guess I should have stated that.

>From the attributes page (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/attribute.html):
"scope cannot be applied to globals, statics, data members, ref or out 
parameters."

Timely destruction of a member that is not referenced in any other 
object/thread should occur when the object that owns the member is 
destroyed.  No need to force it, which is why scope isn't necessary or 
valid.

-Steve