On Wednesday, August 11, 2010 07:08:27 Steven Schveighoffer wrote: > I agree with what Michael suggested that destructors should be restricted > to unsafe D.
The more this whole issue gets discussed, the less it seems like I know about the issue. It's just too complicated to be immediately understandable. Personally, I think that the very fact that it's possible to access references which are no longer valid in a class destructor (and not only possible but _easily_ as well) makes it so that class destructors should be disallowed in SafeD. They just don't sound safe. If you really know what you're doing, you can use them, but other than that, forget it. That sounds precisely like why SafeD exists in the first place. Not to mention, it's looking more and more to me like if you want any kind of reasonable destruction going on, you need to be using a struct on the stack anyway. I'd suggest not only disallowing class destructors in SafeD but also disallowing structs with destructors on the heap in SafeD. It's just too messy. - Jonathan M Davis