www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - Why free and realloc seem to include .

reply Michael <michael toohuman.io> writes:
So this might be a bit of a stupid question, but looking at the 
DMD source code (dmodule.d in particular) I see the following 
code:

if (srcfile._ref == 0)
    .free(srcfile.buffer);
srcfile.buffer = null;
srcfile.len = 0;
and I was just wondering why certain functions seem to be called using the dot operator on its own, unattached to some object. This is probably a naive question but I haven't seen this in my limited experience using D and I was just wondering why this is. I have only really seen this relating to D's manual memory management. But in the same file, I see examples like this:
FileName.free(n);
so what is the case when you should use .free() and why not just free()? Thanks.
Aug 03
parent reply Temtaime <temtaime gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 3 August 2017 at 14:03:56 UTC, Michael wrote:
 So this might be a bit of a stupid question, but looking at the 
 DMD source code (dmodule.d in particular) I see the following 
 code:

if (srcfile._ref == 0)
    .free(srcfile.buffer);
srcfile.buffer = null;
srcfile.len = 0;
and I was just wondering why certain functions seem to be called using the dot operator on its own, unattached to some object. This is probably a naive question but I haven't seen this in my limited experience using D and I was just wondering why this is. I have only really seen this relating to D's manual memory management. But in the same file, I see examples like this:
FileName.free(n);
so what is the case when you should use .free() and why not just free()? Thanks.
Dot is equal to C++'s :: operator to access a global namespace. Aka ::free(ptr);
Aug 03
parent reply Michael <michael toohuman.io> writes:
On Thursday, 3 August 2017 at 14:15:40 UTC, Temtaime wrote:
 On Thursday, 3 August 2017 at 14:03:56 UTC, Michael wrote:
 So this might be a bit of a stupid question, but looking at 
 the DMD source code (dmodule.d in particular) I see the 
 following code:

[...]
and I was just wondering why certain functions seem to be called using the dot operator on its own, unattached to some object. This is probably a naive question but I haven't seen this in my limited experience using D and I was just wondering why this is. I have only really seen this relating to D's manual memory management. But in the same file, I see examples like this:
[...]
so what is the case when you should use .free() and why not just free()? Thanks.
Dot is equal to C++'s :: operator to access a global namespace. Aka ::free(ptr);
I've not seen that either, though I'm not a C++ programmer. Does using free() on its own not assume access of a global namespace?
Aug 03
parent reply Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, 3 August 2017 at 15:18:17 UTC, Michael wrote:
 I've not seen that either, though I'm not a C++ programmer. 
 Does using free() on its own not assume access of a global 
 namespace?
Consider the following: class Foo { void free(void*); void other_method() { free(ptr); // calls the member function } } The leading dot in D just ensures it calls the global one instead of a member (if present).
Aug 03
parent Michael <michael toohuman.io> writes:
On Thursday, 3 August 2017 at 15:29:29 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
 On Thursday, 3 August 2017 at 15:18:17 UTC, Michael wrote:
 I've not seen that either, though I'm not a C++ programmer. 
 Does using free() on its own not assume access of a global 
 namespace?
Consider the following: class Foo { void free(void*); void other_method() { free(ptr); // calls the member function } } The leading dot in D just ensures it calls the global one instead of a member (if present).
So it could be used without, but you risk conflicts with other functions. I got it, thanks to both of you.
Aug 03