Uh... destructors?

[dsimcha]

On 2/22/2011 12:13 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Monday 21 February 2011 20:46:56 %u wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm just curious... why is saying something like this:
>>
>> extern(C)
>>      private static const pure override final synchronized ~this() { }
>>
>> allowed?
>
> dmd is pretty lax about attributes which don't apply. It generally just ignores
> them. Personally, I think that it should error on invalid attributes, but for
> some reason, that's not how it works. Of course, there could be other bugs in
> play here, but there's every possibility that the end result is completely
> valid.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

One point noone's apparently made yet:  DMD's ignorance here is 
occasionally a boon for generic programming.  For example, in some 
places in various code I write things like:

void doStuff(C)(scope C callable)

In this case, C can be either a delegate, a function pointer, or a class 
or struct that overloads opCall.  Scope structs and function pointers 
make no sense.  Scope delegates mean that the delegate does not escape 
the scope of doStuff(), so no closure allocation is needed.  If I had to 
write two separate functions to handle cases like these it would be a 
**huge** PITA.