Two feature requests

[Boris Kolar]

== Quote from Julio César Carrascal Urquijo (jcesar at phreaker.net)'s article
> > auto class Foo { ... }
> > ....
> > Foo x; // equivalent to "auto Foo x;"?
> >
> > .... or perhaps this:
> > Foo x; // equivalent to "auto Foo x = new Foo();"
> I think that this isn't the intended purpose of auto classes in D. They
> are with us to allow deterministic destruction of an instance at the end
> of scope.
> If you are familiar with C# you should think of them as classes that
> implement IDisposable and are created inside a "using" statement. Their
> life-time spans until the closing brace and then the destructor is
> called. This is very useful technique, specially if you are using a
> Database or other resources witch are scarce.
> The C# "using" statement it's more logical to me, but since "auto"
> allows stack allocation (thus improving performance) I'm very happy with
> it and my only complaint it's the type-inference issue.

Deterministic destruction is exactly why I want auto classes. In C++, you also
have deterministic destruction with structs/classes (in case of classes you must
not use the "new" keyword). For example, this C++ code achieves the desired result
of deterministic destruction:

#include "stdio.h"

class Test {
public:
	Test() {
		printf("ctor\n");
	}
	~Test() {
		printf("dtor\n");
	}
};
void test() {
	Test t;
}
int main() {
	printf("Running test\n");
	test();
	printf("Done testing\n");
	return 0;
}

In C++, however, "auto classes" are much more usefull because they can be passed
as parameters, returned as results, or part of other classes. I'm 100% sure we can
have both: usability without current restrictions and deterministic destruction.