Subject: Re: [std-proposals] explicit class
From: GaÅ¡per AÅ¾man (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
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:55 PM Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals <
> On Monday, 11 November 2019 23:54:06 PST Andrey Semashev via Std-Proposals
> > > As to the destructor, my answer is yes. Consider a class that holds
> > > global state for a non-terminating process. We would certainly want
> > > 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
> 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 list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com
Standard Proposals Archives on Google Groups