On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 at 23:19:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 03:55:38PM -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu
via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 4/30/14, 3:47 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
>I don't like the sound of that. I haven't found myself in a
>place
>where I needed to do something like this, but if I had to,
>I'd be
>very unhappy if struct dtors only work when they're not class
>members. Can we make them always work, and if necessary
>prohibit
>using them as class members?
Then we're back to effectively class destructors. I think we've
gathered quite a bit of evidence there are pernicious issues
associated with them. -- Andrei
[...]
How so? If we prohibit structs with dtors from being class
members,
then it could work.
Why would we prohibit structs with destructors from being class
members? That don't make sense to me.
"A class is allowed to have a destructor" <=> "A class can have
members with destructors".
So we either kill off class destructor entirelly (which would
mean no members with destructors) (But that seems like a bad
idea), or we keep both.
Or did I miss something in the argument?
