--- Comment #8 from Kenji Hara <k.hara...@gmail.com> 2011-09-20 13:50:24 PDT ---
Sorry, that was imcomplete.
(In reply to comment #6)
> ubyte[B.sizeof] mem=void;
> emplace!B(mem.ptr);//Does this call to B's constructor call A's dtor on some
> kind of trash then?
writefln("%s %s %s", A.ctor, A.post, A.dtor);//prints 0 0 1
writefln("%s %s %s", B.ctor, B.post, B.dtor);//prints 0 0 1
// emplace calls A's ctor through calling B's ctor.
> And that's a problem. I mean even when emplace is working and all. Do we
> want everybody to write emplace(&a, dummy); to do initialization in
> Seems very backwards.
> I'd hate it if this will be some kind of rule #22 of how to do things
> in D.
I think the cases that actually needs emplace is rare.
In most cases, it is rare that T.init has a meaningful state.
(In this context, 'meaningful' means calling destructor against T.init does
e.g. reference counter == 0, class reference == null, ...)
Therefore, destructor calling with assignment against T.init like `a =
A(dummy)` does not make problems usually.
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------