• "Matthew Wilson" <matthew stlsoft.org> Oct 11 2003
• "Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> Oct 12 2003
• "Matthew Wilson" <matthew stlsoft.org> Oct 12 2003

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew stlsoft.org> writes:

Is there a good reason why we can't have ctors/dtors on structs?

I think they'd be extremely useful, and am currently stymied on a technique
I wanted to use because of this.

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> writes:

I believe the given reason is that it would make the compiler implementation
more complicated, and would complicate exception handling.  I know one of
the design goals of D is a simple implementation, but this seems like a
cop-out to me.

Sean

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew stlsoft.org> wrote in message
news:bmafdi$2u7n$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 Is there a good reason why we can't have ctors/dtors on structs?

 I think they'd be extremely useful, and am currently stymied on a


 I wanted to use because of this.

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew stlsoft.org> writes:

I can see the point of a simple compiler implementation up to a point, but
when it comes to hobbling the language, it's gone beyond its purpose.

Is it better to have a powerful language, or a simple compiler? What's going
to result in the greater success of D in the long run? Seems pretty obvious
to me (and you :))

"Sean L. Palmer" <palmer.sean verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bmcfq6$2icd$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I believe the given reason is that it would make the compiler


 more complicated, and would complicate exception handling.  I know one of
 the design goals of D is a simple implementation, but this seems like a
 cop-out to me.

 Sean

 "Matthew Wilson" <matthew stlsoft.org> wrote in message
 news:bmafdi$2u7n$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 Is there a good reason why we can't have ctors/dtors on structs?

 I think they'd be extremely useful, and am currently stymied on a


 I wanted to use because of this.