News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on /story/45422717. Parent comment

Re: by ncruces on Thursday October 02, 2025 @12:52PM (#45452191)
But would a destructor that runs automagically when a value goes out of scope, even if it's not properly initialized (and with zero regards for copies or moves) be in any way better than a defer that's explicitly called after it is initialized?

Cause, like, that's the entire thread.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by dwattttt on Thursday October 02, 2025 @04:31PM (#45455169)
Nope, it wouldn't be. I'm just pointing out that it being unsafe or hard to use is no barrier at all to it being in the language.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re: by masklinn on Friday October 03, 2025 @05:03AM (#45460705)
Hell, since RAII is an opt-in type-level infectious (in the sense that if you have an RAII member in a struct the struct is RAII) mechanism you can require that RAII structs be initialised.

Given the compiler would already need to know that a local is of an RAII type in order to insert the drop, move, and copy glues it’s not exactly a big requirement.

[ Parent | on HN ]