www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - [RFC] Fix `object.destroy` problem

reply Denis Shelomovskij <verylonglogin.reg gmail.com> writes:
IMHO we have a huge design problem with `object.destroy`.

Please, carefully read "Now the worst thing with `object.destroy`" 
section of the pull 344 about it:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/344


-- 
Денис В. Шеломовский
Denis V. Shelomovskij
Nov 07 2012
next sibling parent Denis Shelomovskij <verylonglogin.reg gmail.com> writes:
08.11.2012 1:20, Denis Shelomovskij пишет:
 IMHO we have a huge design problem with `object.destroy`.

 Please, carefully read "Now the worst thing with `object.destroy`"
 section of the pull 344 about it:
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/344

Just my own post: The first time I looked at `destroy` implementation (yes, I almost always read sources as documentation often gives a small part of needed information and in this particular case it really gives nothing) I considered it strange. From the second look when I completely understood what is it really doing I was in shock how such inconsistent and dangerous thing could ever be made. So finally I found time and did the pull. And it was obvious that everybody understand the problem or, if someone hasn't already read `destroy` implementation, he will see the diff and will agree in the moment. But as it isn't the first time I think so, I provided a detailed description about [obvious] `destroy` problems. A response was about: "What is the problem with `destroy`? Why are you doing it?". So here is this NG thread and, probably, I will hear even more "Why are you doing it?" questions which I don't know how to answer as I already listened all my reasons in pull description and can't add a lot. And probably will never understand why people asking such questions doesn't argue their opinion by proofing that my arguments are incorrect or irrelevant. -- Денис В. Шеломовский Denis V. Shelomovskij
Nov 07 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Regan Heath" <regan netmail.co.nz> writes:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 21:20:59 -0000, Denis Shelomovskij  
<verylonglogin.reg gmail.com> wrote:

 IMHO we have a huge design problem with `object.destroy`.

 Please, carefully read "Now the worst thing with `object.destroy`"  
 section of the pull 344 about it:
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/344

I think you're missunderstood the purpose of "destroy" and I agree with the comments here: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/344#issuecomment-10160177 R -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Nov 08 2012
parent Denis Shelomovskij <verylonglogin.reg gmail.com> writes:
08.11.2012 15:57, Regan Heath пишет:
 On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 21:20:59 -0000, Denis Shelomovskij
 <verylonglogin.reg gmail.com> wrote:

 IMHO we have a huge design problem with `object.destroy`.

 Please, carefully read "Now the worst thing with `object.destroy`"
 section of the pull 344 about it:
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/344

I think you're missunderstood the purpose of "destroy" and I agree with the comments here: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/344#issuecomment-10160177 R

Thanks for the reply, but it doesn't help as I think these comments are incorrect. -- Денис В. Шеломовский Denis V. Shelomovskij
Nov 08 2012
prev sibling parent "Regan Heath" <regan netmail.co.nz> writes:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 21:36:52 -0000, Denis Shelomovskij  =

<verylonglogin.reg gmail.com> wrote:

 08.11.2012 15:57, Regan Heath =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82:
 On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 21:20:59 -0000, Denis Shelomovskij
 <verylonglogin.reg gmail.com> wrote:

 IMHO we have a huge design problem with `object.destroy`.

 Please, carefully read "Now the worst thing with `object.destroy`"
 section of the pull 344 about it:
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/344

I think you're missunderstood the purpose of "destroy" and I agree wi=


 the comments here:
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/druntime/pull/344#issuecomm=


 R

Thanks for the reply, but it doesn't help as I think these comments ar=

 incorrect.

I realise that, I'm just letting you know what I think. It doesn't help that the comments in the pull request are not clear as t= o = exactly what you think is wrong with the current behaviour. Perhaps you could start by describing the current behaviour (try to avoi= d = emotive words like 'bad' etc and just concentrate on what it does). The= n, = you could describe each change you would make and why. It's not clear t= o = me from the linked pull request just what you want to change and why. R -- = Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Nov 08 2012