delete and references?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Andrei
> Alexandrescu<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>> FWIW, I am trying to convince Walter to not reclaim memory in delete, but
>> instead only call destructors. D continues C++'s mistake of conflating
>> lifetime termination with memory reclamation.
> 
> Why?  Instead of dangling pointers, you'd end up with pointers to
> finalized objects, which would probably lead to harder-to-catch bugs
> (since then you wouldn't even get a segfault).

Getting a segfault == lucky

> And what if you used it to try to delete a temporary array?  Yes, you
> could use malloc/free for the temp array, but.. it just seems silly to
> have to dip into C functions to do that.

Why? It's not a frequent need.


Andrei