collectNoStack should be axed

[Quirin Schroll]

On Tuesday, 23 April 2024 at 07:38:25 UTC, cc wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 April 2024 at 19:28:11 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
> wrote:
>> If they don't get a printout, they post an angry/confused 
>> message on the forums saying
>>
>> ### Y U No work GC?
>
> If a user writes a destructor, and that destructor is never 
> called sometime after a `new`, then yes, I think "Why isn't the 
> GC working?" is a valid and fair question for that user to ask. 
>  I don't see any way in which that expectation should be 
> considered *unreasonable*. If the answer is "No you don't 
> understand, the GC internals such that this- that- and the 
> other thing- means you can't have guaranteed destructors", then 
> I'd say you've failed to make the sale and the customer is 
> right to walk away.

I always thought destructors run on GC-allocated objects some 
time between the last reference to the object disappears and the 
application exits. If you want some cleanup to run promptly after 
last reference is gone, a destructor is not the right tool. (You 
need reference counting or something like that, if a unique owner 
cannot be established.) The destructor not running at all is 
really surprising if you allocated the object normally.