D's Destructors are What Scott Meyers Warned Us About

[12345swordy]

On Monday, 28 May 2018 at 04:26:02 UTC, sarn wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 May 2018 at 22:27:52 UTC, sarn wrote:
>> I've been thinking this through a bit, and here's what I've 
>> got so far:
>
> Here's a tweak that should be implementable without any 
> language changes:
>
> Instead of trying to detect an empty destructor, we use a UDA 
> on the class --- call it BaseObject or something.  A 
> BaseObject-marked class is meant to be something like Andre's 
> ProtoObject, or a custom alternative base.  It must not define 
> a destructor or include members with destructors (could relax 
> this in future but works for now), and must only inherit from 
> other BaseObject-marked classes.
>
> With that, __vdtor could be implemented using a template mixin.
>  For a BaseObject class, that would generate an empty virtual 
> __vdtor.  For other classes, it would call __xdtor and then 
> (non-virtually) call __vdtor for the superclass as long as it's 
> not a BaseObject class.
>
> Can anyone see something I've missed?  I think it works with 
> the current type system, makes Andre's ProtoObject possible 
> while supporting subclassing with @nogc or whatever, and gives 
> us safe class destructors that could be compatible with C++.
How is __vdtor is going to be called, via destroy or via 
directly? The issue that I see that your going to create a 
"BaseObject" for every attribute or combination of said 
attributes. Which creates way too much code bloat. Even more so 
with the possibility of adding more attributes in the future.