C++ Logo

STD-PROPOSALS

Advanced search

Subject: Re: [std-proposals] explicit class
From: Gašper Ažman (gasper.azman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-11-12 10:08:28


ADA solves this problem with the forever construct, allegedly created
because so many of the programs written in ADA terminated with Rapid
Planned Dissasembly.

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:55 PM Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Monday, 11 November 2019 23:54:06 PST Andrey Semashev via Std-Proposals
> wrote:
> > > As to the destructor, my answer is yes. Consider a class that holds
> > > global state for a non-terminating process. We would certainly want
> the
> > > developer to consider what should happen if the object somehow gets
> > > destroyed! The explicit keyword would force such thinking.
> > People normally don't write a program that never terminates. You have to
> > have some condition upon which you terminate. At least, on user input or
> > a signal.
>
> Also, the compiler doesn't know the process never terminates. If the
> variable
> has static, thread or automatic scope, the compiler needs to generate the
> destruction code.
>
> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
> Software Architect - Intel System Software Products
>
>
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>



STD-PROPOSALS list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com

Standard Proposals Archives on Google Groups