Re: Better handling of noncopyable objects and objects with this(this)

[Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 12:50:28 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
Also, object with destructors need to have more restrictions:
    S {
        ~this();
    }

    void foo() {
        S s;
        if(condition)
            bar(s);
        // <- should we run the destructor here?
    }

This can either be solved by making such cases non-eligible, or 
by "remembering" whether an object was moved using a hidden 
boolean variable. AFAIK the latter is incidentally the solution 
Rust chose.

Wouldn't the compiler just do something like

if(condition)
{
    bar(s); // Do a move; the destructor is run inside bar
    return;
}
else
{
    s.__dtor();
    return;
}

In which case, the destructor is always run in the right spot, 
and the compiler can guarantee that a move is done rather than a 
copy?

- Jonathan M Davis