RFC: scope and borrowing

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d]

On 28/08/14 21:27, "Marc Schütz" <schuetzm at gmx.net>" wrote:

> The other way round would be safer: A destructor automatically calls as
> its first step a finalizer (let's use that term for a destructor called
> by the GC) if present, but a finalizer doesn't call the destructor.
> Remember that the things that are forbidden in a finalizer are usually
> fine in normal destructors. By calling the destructor from inside the
> finalizer, you bring all the problems back that you wanted to get rid of
> by introducing a special finalizer, right?
>
> And this would be backwards-compatible: There is already today no
> guarantee that a destructor gets called by the GC, so never calling it
> doesn't break any valid code, strictly speaking. Then you could place
> "safe" cleanup actions (like closing a file) into the finalizer, and
> "unsafe" ones (like removing yourself from a linked list) into the
> destructor, and you don't need to duplicate the actions from the
> finalizer in the destructor. The compiler might then even detect unsafe
> operations in the finalizer and refuse to compile them.

Yeah, you're probably right. I got it all backwards.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg