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.

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);

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?

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).

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.