On 1/25/19 5:57 AM, kinke wrote:
On Thursday, 24 January 2019 at 23:59:30 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/24/2019 1:03 PM, kinke wrote:
(bool __gate = false;) , ((A __pfx = a();)) , ((B __pfy = b();)) ,
__gate = true , f(__pfx, __pfy);
There must be an individual gate for each of __pfx and pfy. With the
rewrite above, if b() throws then _pfx won't be destructed.
There is no individual gate, there's just one to rule the
caller-destruction of all temporaries. That's the current state, and
there's no need for that to change. I was trying to say that a rewrite
as expression, as requested as part of the assessment, clearly isn't
enough, as the dtor expressions aren't visible this way, and neither is
the scoping (when the dtor expression of `__pfx` comes into play etc.).
I think the point of the DIP is not to lower expressions. It makes no
sense to, they have to be statements (just like all temporaries live
until the end of a statement).
-Steve
