On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 03:03:52 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
On Thursday, 23 June 2022 at 21:34:27 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Thursday, 23 June 2022 at 21:05:57 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
It's a weird rule for sure.
Another slightly annoying thing is that it cares about
destruction order when there are no destructors.
If there are no destructors the lifetime ought to be
considered the same for variables in the same scope.
Having different lifetime rules for different types is worse UX
than having the same lifetime rules for all types.
Imagine writing a generic function which passes all of your
unit tests, and then fails when you try to use it in real code,
because you forgot to test it with a type that has a destructor.
No, the lifetime is the same if there is no destructor. Being
counter intuitive is poor usability.
If you want to help library authors you issue a warning for
generic code only.
