On Tue, 27 Aug 2002, Mike Lambert wrote: > Is there still a need for determinstic destruction, even in light of the > alternative approaches mentioned above?
Yes, if the destruction of the resource is itself important to the program. For example, one way to do exception-safe locks in C++ is to have a stack-allocated object whose constructor acquires the lock, and whose destructor unlocks it. I'm not sure if this is a paradigm we want to support, but it's something to think about. /s
