On Thursday, 8 October 2015 at 16:14:05 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Thursday, 8 October 2015 at 15:59:23 UTC, bitwise wrote:
Again, it's much easier to be careful about this when the
author's intent is baked into the class.
That may be, but my point was that it doesn't actually
guarantee that the object is going to be destroyed
determinstically. That's going to require that the programmer
using the object know that it's designed to be destroyed
deterministically and program accordingly. Having it be easier
for the programmer to figure out whether an object was designed
that way is definitely a plus, but it doesn't make it so that
they don't have to worry about it.
- Jonathan M Davis
True. I agree with you on this.
All the time, this idea comes to mind when I see people arguing
back and forth, thinking that they will eventually converge on
some perfectly ideal solution which obviates the need for any
real effort.
Bit
