eliminate new operator paraphernalia

[Michel Fortin]

On 2010-02-14 17:21:51 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu 
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:

> Michel Fortin wrote:
>> On 2010-02-14 15:41:30 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu 
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:
>> 
>>> Michel Fortin wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hum, what's the syntax for placement delete?
>>> 
>>> There is no need for placement delete. There will be a function clear() 
>>> in object.d that only calls the destructor. (That is needed 
>>> regardless.) You can carry deallocation with your own API functions.
>> 
>> What's the point in wasting a function name only to call the 
>> destructor? Why not just allow "object.~this()"?
> 
> You might want to clear an int etc. for which it's unclear whether the 
> above should work.
> 
>> Also, if you really want to put an object back in it's initial state, 
>> you could call both the destructor and the constructor. Anything else 
>> is going to break the object's invariant. I think it's best to leave 
>> breaking the object's invariants to a special syntax, hence 
>> "object.~this()".
> 
> Yah, clear destroys and then fills with .init.

...and call the default constructor for classes (and is not callable if 
there is no default constructor). If you don't call a constructor for a 
class, invariants can't hold.

Ok. That's fine for clear() then, but it's not the same thing as just 
calling the destructor. There should be a way to just call the 
destructor prior deallocation.


-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/