auto classes and finalizers - correction

[kris]

kris wrote:
> I use a bit of a hack to distinguish between the two: a common module 
> has a global variable set to true when the enclosing module-dtor is 
> invoked. This obviously depends upon module-dtors being first (which 
> they currently are, but that is not in the spec). Most of you will 
> probably be going "eww" at this point, but it's the only way I found to 
> make dtors consistent and thus usable. Further, this is only workable if 
> the dtor() itself can be abandoned when in state (b) above; prohibiting 
> the use of dtors for a whole class of cleanup concerns, and forcing one 
> to defer to the dispose() or close() pattern ~~ some say anti-pattern.

After reading, that paragraph does not reflect the status-quo at all ...

First, it should have said "used" instead of "use" (past-tense ~ this is 
not applied any more, since dtors have all but been abandoned). Second, 
the identification of "state" was limited to program termination only ~ 
the classes in question were actually collected only at that point. 
Third, the cleanup did not rely on GC managed memory. All in all, that 
paragraph is pretty darned misleading ~~ my bad :-(

The take-home message is that I did not find a general mechanism to 
distinguish between valid-state and unspecified-state for a dtor ~ the 
oft-crucial inconsistency remains in its fully-fledged guise. The other 
issue is that I clearly should avoid posting whilst hallucinating.

Sorry;