forcing "@nogc" on class destructors

[Paolo Invernizzi via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 23 January 2015 at 21:00:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
> On 1/23/15 3:40 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Friday, 23 January 2015 at 13:12:44 UTC, Steven 
>> Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On 1/23/15 8:05 AM, Matthias Bentrup wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 23 January 2015 at 10:53:54 UTC, aldanor wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 23 January 2015 at 08:58:11 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
>>>>> Grøstad wrote:
>>>>>> How about banning GC-allocation of classes with 
>>>>>> destructors?
>>>>> Uh... what? ^__^
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe just ban classes altogether then?
>>>>
>>>> No, don't ban them, that will break to much code. Just don't 
>>>> execute
>>>> them. Any application that depends on destructors being 
>>>> called by the GC
>>>> is broken in 9 out of 10 cases anyway.
>>>
>>> This is very wrong.
>>
>> This is as per spec :)
>
> No, spec says your dtor is not guaranteed to run for 
> unreferenced memory. It doesn't say your destructor may not be 
> run even when the memory is collected. In fact, it says "The 
> garbage collector calls the destructor function when the object 
> is deleted."
>
> But my real point is that depending on dtors being called by 
> the GC is not broken 90% of the time.
>
> -Steve

You are right, on a literal point, but I think that what he was
saying was something like:

"Any application that depends on object being collected in a
collect circle as unreferenced, so that depends on destructors
are being called by the GC is broken in 9 out of 10 cases anyway"

I agree with aldanor about his argumentation that a warning would
be appropriate: it's a very common pitfall, and a pitfall that
simply cast a bad light on the language in newcomers' minds when
it occurs at runtime.
Also if a lint tool can catch it, we all are conscious of the big
effort that the community leaders are putting on picturing a
better language for newbies (please, no pun intended, really!)
--
Paolo