More radical ideas about gc and reference counting

[fra via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 22:49:01 UTC, H. S. Teoh via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 02:30:05PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu 
> via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> On 4/30/14, 2:15 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> >On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 02:13:32PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu 
>> >via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> >>On 4/30/14, 2:09 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> >>>On 04/30/2014 10:58 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> >>>>On 4/30/14, 1:56 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>struct S{
>> >>>>>     ~this(){ /* ... */ }
>> >>>>>     /* ... */
>> >>>>>}
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>class C{
>> >>>>>     S s;
>> >>>>>}
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>By hand, as I mentioned. -- Andrei
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>I meant, is it going to be deprecated too?
>> >>
>> >>No, that will continue to be allowed. -- Andrei
>> >
>> >Then what is it going to do? S.~this will never get called?
>> 
>> That is correct. -- Andrei
>
> I don't like the sound of that. I haven't found myself in a 
> place where
> I needed to do something like this, but if I had to, I'd be 
> very unhappy
> if struct dtors only work when they're not class members. Can 
> we make
> them always work, and if necessary prohibit using them as class 
> members?
>
>
> T

Can't do nothing but agree. Unless I'm missing something, no 
destructors means memory leaks every time I use non-class objects 
inside a class object. At least current behaviour makes sure that 
when memory is needed, everything gets cleaned up properly. 
Honestly, this sounds crazy to me.