On 01/11/12 22:21, Dan wrote:
TDPL states
--
However, unlike in C++, clear does not dispose of the object’s
own memory and there is no delete operator. (D used to have a
delete operator, but it was deprecated.) You still can free
memory manually if you really, really know what you’re doing by
On Thursday, November 01, 2012 22:21:11 Dan wrote:
> struct S {
> int[] a; // array is privately owned by this instance
> this(this) {
> a = a.dup;
> }
> ~this() {
> delete a;
> }
> }
>
> Is the delete call, then per TDPL not necessary? Is it harmful or
> harmless?
It's not necessary at all. delet
On 11/01/2012 02:21 PM, Dan wrote:
> TDPL states
> --
> However, unlike in C++, clear does not dispose of the object’s
> own memory and there is no delete operator.
Additionally, TDPL predates 'clear's deprecation in December 2012. It is
called 'destroy' now.
Ali
On 01-11-2012 22:21, Dan wrote:
TDPL states
--
However, unlike in C++, clear does not dispose of the object’s
own memory and there is no delete operator. (D used to have a
delete operator, but it was deprecated.) You still can free
memory manually if you really, really know what you’re doing
