On Thursday, July 19, 2018 10:04:34 RazvanN via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > I just don't understand why you would ever mark the destructor of > a struct with @disable. When is that useful? If it's not, why not > just forbit it?
There's nothing special about destructors here. You can @disable any member function, and if you do, you get an error if you try to use it, since it's @disabled. So, code that doesn't use an @disabled function works just fine, and any code that attempts to use it gets an error. For the vast majority of functions, @disabling them really doesn't make any sense, but from what I can tell, @disable was simply implemented as a general feature rather than trying to allow specific functions to be @disabled and then have to add code for each function that we want to be able to @disable. So, the fact that you can @disable destructors is just the result of the feature being implemented in a simple, straightforward manner. But while I agree that @disabling destructors doesn't make sense, I don't see why it would actually be a problem that it's allowed. Anyone who tries it is just going to quickly get errors and have to remove @disable from the destructor. Explicitly make it illegal to mark a destructor with @disabled doesn't really add anything from what I can see. - Jonathan M Davis
