Destructor semantics

[foo]

In light on recent discussions of clear() and the distructor it seems to me that we are going backwards from one of D's great improvements over C++ - the difference in semantics between structs and classes.

IMO, instead of enhancing class desteructors they should be completely removed and only allowed on structs with deterministic semantics and all uses cases of class desteructors should be replaced with structs. 
Examples:
class SocketConnection : Connection {
// struct instance allocated inline  
SocketHandle handle; 
...
}

OR:

class SocketConnection : Connection {
struct {
   this()  { acquireHandle(); }
  ~this() { releaseHandle(); }
} handle;
...
}

The suggested semantics of the above code would be that creating a 
SocketConnection object would also construct a SocketHandle as part of the object's memory and in turn that would call the struct's ctor. 
On destruction of the object, the struct member would be also destructed and it's d-tor is called. This is safe since the struct is part of the same memory as the object. 

in short, struct instances should be treated just like built-in types.