3 ms·

Edited to inject: Actually on second thoughts maybe none of these even do what you thought they did, they're even sillier than I'd assumed. So funny thing, you

Edited to inject: Actually on second thoughts maybe none of these even do what you thought they did, they're even sillier than I'd assumed. So funny thing, your C++ 26 solution doesn't do what my Rust function does. Actually even the first one doesn't, but you likely don't really care about a std::unique_ptr, so it doesn't feel like a difference, and the negligence only really bites when it's not "just" that pointer type. You see that Rust function destroyed the T. It's gone, no more T. But your C++ function makes a new T, then destroys the old one, so there's still a T, it's not gone after all.

fooker 1y ago
> You see that Rust function destroyed the T. It's gone, no more T. But your C++ function makes a new T, then destroys the old one, so there's still a T, it's not gone after all. Perhaps your idea of C++ semantics is a bit off?
- tialaramex 1y ago
  After more consideration I think probably your functions don't do anything at all? Is that the joke here? That despite everything you didn't understand why core::mem::drop has that definition and so reading the empty body you assumed that you can just not do anything and that'll work in C++ ?
  - fooker 1y ago
    Are you trolling? Or do you genuinely not understand why it might work in C++? https://godbolt.org/z/58TqTTM37 https://godbolt.org/z/58TqTTM37
    - tialaramex 1y ago
      No, I'm not trolling, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, try this C++: https://godbolt.org/z/zM3oxjrfn https://godbolt.org/z/zM3oxjrfn and contrast this Rust: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/1rMYcqY65 https://rust.godbolt.org/z/1rMYcqY65 In your unique_ptr<T> example what you'd hidden (from me? Or perhaps from yourself) was that we're not destroying the unique_ptr, we're just destroying the Foo, and since the unique_ptr is null the destructor for that will be silent when the scope ends.

fooker 1y ago

> You see that Rust function destroyed the T. It's gone, no more T. But your C++ function makes a new T, then destroys the old one, so there's still a T, it's not gone after all. Perhaps your idea of C++ semantics is a bit off?

tialaramex 1y ago
After more consideration I think probably your functions don't do anything at all? Is that the joke here? That despite everything you didn't understand why core::mem::drop has that definition and so reading the empty body you assumed that you can just not do anything and that'll work in C++ ?
- fooker 1y ago
  Are you trolling? Or do you genuinely not understand why it might work in C++? https://godbolt.org/z/58TqTTM37 https://godbolt.org/z/58TqTTM37
  - tialaramex 1y ago
    No, I'm not trolling, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, try this C++: https://godbolt.org/z/zM3oxjrfn https://godbolt.org/z/zM3oxjrfn and contrast this Rust: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/1rMYcqY65 https://rust.godbolt.org/z/1rMYcqY65 In your unique_ptr<T> example what you'd hidden (from me? Or perhaps from yourself) was that we're not destroying the unique_ptr, we're just destroying the Foo, and since the unique_ptr is null the destructor for that will be silent when the scope ends.