auto classes and finalizers

[Mike Capp]

In article <e1dak2$21d9$1 at digitaldaemon.com>, Bruno Medeiros says...
>
>Protection attributes and casts add usefulness (not gonna detail why).

The usefulness of protection attributes lies solely in preventing you from
misusing something. Same with auto and dtors. If a class needs a dtor, leaving
it to the GC qualifies as misuse in my view.

>Forcing all classes with destructors to be auto classes, on the other 
>hand, severily limits the usage of such classes. An auto class can not 
>be a global, static, field, inout and out parameter. It must be bound to 
>a function, and *cannot be a part of another data structure*. This 
>latter restriction, as is, is unacceptable, no?

Agreed; IIRC, auto members of auto classes were part of my original suggestion,
and I think the dtors-for-autos-only restriction would quickly force this
problem out into the open.

It may be that we're agreeing on the destination and only differing on how to
get there.

cheers
Mike