Enforced @nogc for dtors?

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 5 May 2014 at 18:32:30 UTC, Brian Rogoff wrote:
> On Monday, 5 May 2014 at 17:46:35 UTC, Orvid King via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> Destructors and finalizers are the same thing.
>
> That is exactly the point that I am arguing against. That they 
> are confused in D (or 'unified', if you think is a good thing) 
> I accept, but I think it's a language design error, or at least 
> an unfortunate omission.

Yes, if the compiler doesn't know the conceptual parent-child 
relationship. e.g.: the parent-connection may close before the 
child-transaction has flushed/commited. In order to prevent this 
you can introduce (or deduce if you have the semantics of 
ownership) parent-pointers from child to parent and only allow 
parent roots to have their destructors called. The result is that 
the parent-root-tree is not released until all destructible 
children are ready.

Having class objects on a separate heap with finalizer support 
could be reasonable if the class construct is viewed as an 
application-level construct and not a system-level construct. 
With a dedicated finalizer datastructure you can record 
finalization dependencies at the cost of a heavier runtime.

However, I think not calling destructors at all for GC memory is 
the better (more nimble) approach for a system level programming 
language.

*shrug*