GC does not delete subclass

[0ffh]

Regan Heath wrote:
> 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. :)

Given that Sean is correct (which is plausible), then it is incorrect to
speak of a bug (or even a 'bug'). The algorithm works as specified.
If someone does not like (or understand) the specification you can hardly
(actually, not even remotely) speak of a bug.
Sorry for nitpicking, but this is bothering me.

regards, frank