On 09/12/2011 04:36 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2011-09-12 20:04:05 +0000, "Steven Schveighoffer"
<[email protected]> said:
How does an author of a struct "not expect" the destructor to be
called on
an .init version of itself? Isn't that an error? Do you have a
counter-case?
struct S
{
@disable this();
}
Nope, the way Walter designed the feature, when such a struct is a
member, it will have opAssign called against an object initialized with
.init.
Generally I find this discussion difficult to get into. So you don't
like the name clear() and you don't like the behavior of clear(). (Also,
you seem to consider calling the destructor several times an
impossibility. Why?) Anyhow, any chance to post a condensed list of
issues as you see them along with proposed fixes?
Thanks,
Andrei
