On Friday, 19 January 2018 at 18:22:33 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On 1/19/18 10:56 AM, 12345swordy wrote:
I can't find any documentation nor can I find any information
regarding it's implementation. I am asking this, as I focusing
on fixing bugs that destroy currently has, most noticeably
bugs regarding attributes. I am not sure that this requires a
DIP in order to fix this.
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17297
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15246
So there has been very little definition around how destructors
use and inherit attributes. Most of this is because destructors
are generally called from the GC, where it doesn't matter at
all what the attributes are.
I think before you can fix such things, we need a clear model
of how the destructors are called, and what is inherited and
what is overridden in base classes. Then we can think about how
to fix the situation.
Note that:
a. The GC must have a *runtime* definition of how to call the
destructors. And we need to statically disallow the GC from
calling destructors it shouldn't be allowed to call (if such
cases exist).
b. Object.~this can't be a decider of what the attributes
should be, as this prevents adding any additional attributes.
c. There is a push recently (by Andrei and Lucia and others) to
remove some of the "magic" calls from the compiler, and replace
them with templates, so we can have more library control over
what happens (and more comiple-time introspection). This should
help quite a bit in the implementation of such things. But we
definitely are limited by the virtual-ness of Objects, and the
opaqueness of the GC.
-Steve
I see, this does look like it needs a DIP in order to fix this.
How the progress of the calls being replaced by templates by
Andrei and company?
