• bitwise (3/3) Aug 11 2017 What do they do?
• HyperParrow (4/7) Aug 11 2017 __xdtor() also calls the __dtor() that are mixed with template
• HyperParrow (20/28) Aug 11 2017 Nice example that speaks by itself:
• bitwise (3/20) Aug 11 2017 I think you mean assert(i == 1) for the second one, right?
• HyperParrow (4/25) Aug 11 2017 I made a mistake but it's not about i, which is a global.
• bitwise (7/15) Aug 11 2017 Ok thanks.
• HyperParrow (9/26) Aug 11 2017 Indeed. And there's also another one for the field called
• bitwise (4/15) Aug 11 2017 hmm...indeed ;)
• Marco Leise (13/20) Aug 12 2017 I think it was simply that all the special methods needed a

bitwise <bitwise.pvt gmail.com> writes:

What do they do?
What's the difference?

Thanks

HyperParrow <dlas nowhere.se> writes:

On Friday, 11 August 2017 at 16:53:02 UTC, bitwise wrote:
 What do they do?
 What's the difference?

 Thanks

__xdtor() also calls the __dtor() that are mixed with template 
mixins while __dtor() only call the __dtor() that matches to the 
normal ~this(){}

HyperParrow <dlas nowhere.se> writes:

On Friday, 11 August 2017 at 17:02:20 UTC, HyperParrow wrote:
 On Friday, 11 August 2017 at 16:53:02 UTC, bitwise wrote:
 What do they do?
 What's the difference?

 Thanks

 __xdtor() also calls the __dtor() that are mixed with template 
 mixins while __dtor() only call the __dtor() that matches to 
 the normal ~this(){}

Nice example that speaks by itself:

=================
int i;
struct Foo
{
     template ToMix(){ ~this(){++++i;}}
     ~this(){++i;}
     mixin ToMix;
}

void main()
{
     Foo* foo = new Foo;
     foo.__xdtor;
     assert(i==3);
     Foo* other = new Foo;
     foo.__dtor;
     assert(i==4); // and not 6 ;)
}
=================

bitwise <bitwise.pvt gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 11 August 2017 at 17:06:40 UTC, HyperParrow wrote:
[...]
 int i;
 struct Foo
 {
     template ToMix(){ ~this(){++++i;}}
     ~this(){++i;}
     mixin ToMix;
 }

 void main()
 {
     Foo* foo = new Foo;
     foo.__xdtor;
     assert(i==3);
     Foo* other = new Foo;
     foo.__dtor;
     assert(i==4); // and not 6 ;)
 }
 =================

I think you mean assert(i == 1) for the second one, right?

HyperParrow <dlas nowhere.se> writes:

On Friday, 11 August 2017 at 17:12:22 UTC, bitwise wrote:
 On Friday, 11 August 2017 at 17:06:40 UTC, HyperParrow wrote:
 [...]
 int i;
 struct Foo
 {
     template ToMix(){ ~this(){++++i;}}
     ~this(){++i;}
     mixin ToMix;
 }

 void main()
 {
     Foo* foo = new Foo;
     foo.__xdtor;
     assert(i==3);
     Foo* other = new Foo;
     foo.__dtor;
     assert(i==4); // and not 6 ;)
 }
 =================

 I think you mean assert(i == 1) for the second one, right?

I made a mistake but it's not about i, which is a global.
I meant "other.__dtor." just before the last assert.
This doesn't change the results.

bitwise <bitwise.pvt gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 11 August 2017 at 17:02:20 UTC, HyperParrow wrote:
 On Friday, 11 August 2017 at 16:53:02 UTC, bitwise wrote:
 What do they do?
 What's the difference?

 Thanks

 __xdtor() also calls the __dtor() that are mixed with template 
 mixins while __dtor() only call the __dtor() that matches to 
 the normal ~this(){}

Ok thanks.

I don't understand why you would ever want to call __dtor 
then...is it possible to have only __dtor without also having 
__xdtor? Like, if I want to call a struct's destructor, do I have 
to check for both, or can I just always check for, and call 
__xdtor?

HyperParrow <dlas nowhere.se> writes:

On Friday, 11 August 2017 at 17:10:14 UTC, bitwise wrote:
 On Friday, 11 August 2017 at 17:02:20 UTC, HyperParrow wrote:
 On Friday, 11 August 2017 at 16:53:02 UTC, bitwise wrote:
 What do they do?
 What's the difference?

 Thanks

 __xdtor() also calls the __dtor() that are mixed with template 
 mixins while __dtor() only call the __dtor() that matches to 
 the normal ~this(){}

 Ok thanks.

 I don't understand why you would ever want to call __dtor 
 then...

Indeed. And there's also another one for the field called 
__fieldDtor.

 is it possible to have only __dtor without also having __xdtor? 
 Like, if I want to call a struct's destructor, do I have to 
 check for both, or can I just always check for, and call 
 __xdtor?

Always use __xdtor unless you know there's no other destructor to 
call.
Actually these functions are an implementation details and should 
be only used for low level things like custom memory handling.

You can look at core/lifetime.d to see how it's used by the d 
runtime.

bitwise <bitwise.pvt gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 11 August 2017 at 17:20:18 UTC, HyperParrow wrote:
 [...]
 I made a mistake but it's not about i, which is a global.
 I meant "other.__dtor." just before the last assert.
 This doesn't change the results.

hmm...indeed ;)

On Friday, 11 August 2017 at 17:24:17 UTC, HyperParrow wrote:
 [...]

 is it possible to have only __dtor without also having 
 __xdtor? Like, if I want to call a struct's destructor, do I 
 have to check for both, or can I just always check for, and 
 call __xdtor?

 Always use __xdtor unless you know there's no other destructor 
 to call.

Ok cool, thanks.

Marco Leise <Marco.Leise gmx.de> writes:

Am Fri, 11 Aug 2017 17:10:14 +0000
schrieb bitwise <bitwise.pvt gmail.com>:

 Ok thanks.
 
 I don't understand why you would ever want to call __dtor 
 then...is it possible to have only __dtor without also having 
 __xdtor? Like, if I want to call a struct's destructor, do I have 
 to check for both, or can I just always check for, and call 
 __xdtor?

I think it was simply that all the special methods needed a
symbol name, so this() was called __ctor and ~this() was
called __dtor. It was never supposed to cover field
destruction, mixed in destructors or inheritance in classes.
User code was not expected to call these directly anyways.
Not very long ago __xdtor and __xpostblit were introduced
that wrap up the entire finalization and copy operation.
__dtor will remain as the 1:1 representation of the ~this()
method.

-- 
Marco