Deterministic resource freeing - delete deprecation (again)

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:18:23 -0400, Francisco Almeida  
<francisco.m.almeida at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 28-04-2011 17:09, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:30:54 -0400, Alexander <aldem+dmars at nk7.net>  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 27.04.2011 19:13, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>
>>>> clear is not a keyword, it is possible to name a member clear, and
>>>> also have a clear global function.
>>>
>>> Sure it is, though it is counter-intuitive - to use same name with
>>> quite different meaning. As for me, if this will really be in final
>>> spec, I'll always alias it to destroy().
>>
>> That has been pointed out before. Yes, it is considered a bad idea to do
>> that, but we have no choice now, clear is the name.
>
> We have no choice? Since when is a function "part of the language"? It  
> could still be renamed with minimal to no impact on Phobos. If it  
> *really* cannot be renamed (which I doubt), then ok, I guess we'll have  
> to live with it.

It's already in the official book describing the language (IIRC, there's  
quite a bit of text on it).  At some point, we have to stop changing parts  
of the spec/design so people can have a stable environment.  The decision  
was to avoid changing things that are covered in TDPL as much as possible.

Is it possible to change?  Yes.  But you will have to convince Andrei and  
Walter, and really, this is a naming issue.  It's not tantamount to the  
language's functionality.

You are more likely to see the clear function in std.container change.

-Steve