GC-proof resource classes

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 08/29/2015 04:45 PM, rsw0x wrote:
> On Saturday, 29 August 2015 at 14:32:27 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 08/29/2015 04:20 PM, cym13 wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 29 August 2015 at 14:17:10 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 29 August 2015 at 13:14:26 UTC, ponce wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> All of this could be fixed by not letting the GC call destructors.
>>>> It's a bad, error-prone design to begin with and I guarantee any
>>>> semi-large D program is probably abusing undefined behavior due to it.
>>>
>>> After reading all that, I too am convinced that the GC shouldn't call
>>> the destructor.
>>
>> But then classes with destructors shouldn't be allowed to be allocated
>> on the GC heap in the first place, which is a PITA as well. (Note that
>> classes/arrays can have destructors because some component structs
>> have them; structs generally assume that their destructors will be
>> called.)
>
> make classes with destructors(and structs allocated via new) have RC
> semantics.

RC is an especially eager form of GC, that does not deal with cycles by 
default. Why does it help?