On 23/02/2011 01:22, %u wrote:
- private makes no sense since (unless we're trying to imitate C++ here)
destructors are only called from
the runtime, and nowhere else.
- The only meaningful attribute there is extern(C).
In what way is extern(C) meaningful for a destructor?
I guess it would be logical to specify that, if someone is desperately trying
to get C code to interop with
D. But I don't think it's too useful... it's just not meaningless.
<snip>
To me it doesn't make sense for C code to call a D object's destructor. For a start, it
would bypass the D runtime that ensures that an object is destructed only once. How would
the name be mangled, anyway?
Stewart.
