#dbugfix 17592

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Thursday, 22 March 2018 at 14:48:04 UTC, 12345swordy wrote:
> That is not a runtime version of system/user attributes! That 
> is custom checking for destructor! Hardly the same.

How would your idea work?

> Again I do not see it anywhere in the specification that 
> support your claim that all classes are dynamic. Otherwise if 
> what your saying is true then you should unable to use classes 
> in Better C mode, as that involves runtime.

Classes in fact do not work with -betterC. 
https://dlang.org/spec/betterc.html#consequences

(Note that you CAN make D classes work with a minimal runtime 
though... but a runtime nonetheless.)

> I am asking to produce a WARNING message here.

Warning: your code is fundamentally broken and cannot work the 
way you want it to work.