On 23 May 2018 at 10:59, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > On 5/23/18 1:41 PM, Manu wrote: >> >> On 23 May 2018 at 05:38, Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d >> <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 5/22/18 10:15 PM, Manu wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> If you're in the mood to prepare a DIP, I think you should prepare this >>>> dip: >>>> >>>> Support the syntax: >>>> classInstance.~this(); >>> >>> >>> >>> Isn't this just classInstance.destroy() ? >> >> >> Is everything in object.d globally available? You don't have to import >> `destroy()` right? >> My nit-pick is that destroy resets to .init after destruction, which >> makes it feel like more than a destroy, and that is almost certainly >> the reason people reach for __xdtor() when they do (ie, they JUST want >> to destruct). >> We should probably address that, and then publish a strong recommendation. >> > > I think it's a good idea. Like unsafeDestroy.
I hate the name. People will constantly reach for the wrong thing. Such a long name says to me "this isn't the function you're looking for" in terms of intuition. For my money it would be: destroy() <- just destroy reset() <- destroy and re-init Or something like that. Maybe: class.destruct(); <- destroy without init? Yeah that. I'll make a PR!
