"Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16@deming-os.org> wrote in message news:3CE3AD39.BBC8F78A@deming-os.org...

> When gc.fullCollect() is called, I would like the garbage collector to
call
> Flush(0) on all of my registered pool objects.

This is usually called a "destructor". =)
Don't forget, destructors are always called when objects get destroyed,
be it a delete operator or a GC cycle.

By the way, there are no default values for function arguments in D.

In article <ac0dfr$26p6$1@digitaldaemon.com>,
 "Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote:

> "Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16@deming-os.org> wrote in message news:3CE3AD39.BBC8F78A@deming-os.org...
> 
> > When gc.fullCollect() is called, I would like the garbage collector to
> call
> > Flush(0) on all of my registered pool objects.
> 
> This is usually called a "destructor". =)
> Don't forget, destructors are always called when objects get destroyed,
> be it a delete operator or a GC cycle.

In garbage-collected languages other than D, this is usually known as a "finalizer", though sometimes the thread that calls the finalize method is called the finalizer.

<http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=garbage+collector+finalizer&btnG=Go ogle+Search>
-- 
C. Keith Ray

<http://homepage.mac.com/keithray/xpminifaq.html>

syntactic sugar

Try could act simular to an "if" statement, where "{" can be left if one statement follows.

ie
int fn()
{
    my_type1  my_obj1 = new my_obj1;

    try my_type2  my_obj2 = new my_obj2;

        try my_type3 my_obj3 = new my_obj3;

            try whatever();
            finally my_obj3.close();

        finally my_obj2.release();

   finally my_obj1.destroy();
}

//If that looks any neater? I don't know, parhaps my layout style could be improved.

PS - I hope my tabed layout is not wrecked by the news writter.


"Sandor Hojtsy" <hojtsy@index.hu> wrote in message news:abvl54$1fd8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I was interested if anyone will notice that correctly this is written as:
>
> int fn()
> {
>    my_type1  my_obj1 = new my_obj1;
>    try {
>      my_type2  my_obj2 = new my_obj2;
>      try {
>        my_type3  my_obj3 = new my_obj3;
>        try {
>          whatever();
>       } finally my_obj3.close();
>     } finally my_obj2.release();
>   } finally my_obj1.destroy();
> }
>
> I consider that noone has noticed this,
> a sign of lack of understandability, and of difficult debugging.
> I cannot think of any syntactic sugar that could help here.
> It needs more fundamental changes.
>
> Yours,
> Sandor Hojtsy
>
>

"anderson" <anderson@firestar.com.au> wrote in message news:acl30i$2sht$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> syntactic sugar
>
> Try could act simular to an "if" statement, where "{" can be left if one statement follows.

It does. There's no such stupidity as in C++, which requires { } around try-block.

"anderson" <anderson@firestar.com.au> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:acl30i$2sht$1@digitaldaemon.com...
[...]
> int fn()
> {
>     my_type1  my_obj1 = new my_obj1;
>
>     try my_type2  my_obj2 = new my_obj2;
>
>         try my_type3 my_obj3 = new my_obj3;
>
>             try whatever();
>             finally my_obj3.close();
>
>         finally my_obj2.release();
>
>    finally my_obj1.destroy();
> }
[...]

I hate this...
I vote for mandatory brackets.

Ciao

Roberto Mariottini wrote:

> "anderson" <anderson@firestar.com.au> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:acl30i$2sht$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> [...]
>> int fn()
>> {
>>     my_type1  my_obj1 = new my_obj1;
>>
>>     try my_type2  my_obj2 = new my_obj2;
>>
>>         try my_type3 my_obj3 = new my_obj3;
>>
>>             try whatever();
>>             finally my_obj3.close();
>>
>>         finally my_obj2.release();
>>
>>    finally my_obj1.destroy();
>> }
> [...]
> 
> I hate this...
> I vote for mandatory brackets.

I disagree - the language should be internally consistant,  therefore anywhere where block statements are permissable it should be possible should be possible to be replace them with a singe statement - even if the result is less than perfect,  as in this case.

C 2002/5/24

"Roberto Mariottini" <rmariottini@lycosmail.com> wrote in message news:acla54$84a$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "anderson" <anderson@firestar.com.au> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:acl30i$2sht$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> [...]
> > int fn()
> > {
> >     my_type1  my_obj1 = new my_obj1;
> >
> >     try my_type2  my_obj2 = new my_obj2;
> >
> >         try my_type3 my_obj3 = new my_obj3;
> >
> >             try whatever();
> >             finally my_obj3.close();
> >
> >         finally my_obj2.release();
> >
> >    finally my_obj1.destroy();
> > }
> [...]
>
> I hate this...
> I vote for mandatory brackets.
>
> Ciao
>

That's a POV (point of view).  I agree that, in this situtuation brackets look better. Sometimes those brakets can look ugly though, and triesome code blotters.

"Roberto Mariottini" <rmariottini@lycosmail.com> wrote in message news:acla54$84a$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> "anderson" <anderson@firestar.com.au> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:acl30i$2sht$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> [...]
> > int fn()
> > {
> >     my_type1  my_obj1 = new my_obj1;
> >
> >     try my_type2  my_obj2 = new my_obj2;
> >
> >         try my_type3 my_obj3 = new my_obj3;
> >
> >             try whatever();
> >             finally my_obj3.close();
> >
> >         finally my_obj2.release();
> >
> >    finally my_obj1.destroy();
> > }
> [...]
>
> I hate this...

Don't like it - don't use it. But let other people do what they want.
By the way, the code above is not correct: there are TWO statements
in each try-block (since declaration is also a statement), so
curly braces are required

And it's not that awful. Consider something like this:

    Foo foo = new Foo;
    try
        foo.bar();
    finally
        delete foo;

And compare this to:

    Foo foo = new Foo;
    try
    { foo.bar()
    } finally
    { delete foo;
    }

Now, which looks better? =) It's a matter of taste, after all.

"C.R.Chafer" <blackmarlin@nospam.asean-mail.com> wrote in message news:aclb1b$8rh$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> I disagree - the language should be internally consistant,  therefore anywhere where block statements are permissable it should be possible should be possible to be replace them with a singe statement - even if the result is less than perfect,  as in this case.

Sure, then we can apply it to functions:

int func(int x, int y, int z) return x+2*y+3*z*x;
void func2(int x, int *y) *y = func(x, x+*y, x-*y);

Or to switch:

switch(number)    case 1:    return 0;

Good. And what about structs:

struct Astruct
   int i;

Beautiful. :-(
I vote for mandatory brackets everywhere (so the language would be
internally consistant).

Ciao.

Hi,

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:acl7qf$4mq$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> > Try could act simular to an "if" statement, where "{" can be left if one statement follows.
>
> It does. There's no such stupidity as in C++, which requires { } around try-block.

It is specified that it is required, see:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/statement.html#try
So, if it works for you without them, either the specification or the
implementation is flawed.

Regards,
Martin M. Pedersen