3 ms·
I agree with everything you've said, except the conclusion: C can't add proper safe RAII, but being "proper and safe" is not a threshold C even tries to uphold.
by dwattttt 1y ago
I agree with everything you've said, except the conclusion: C can't add proper safe RAII, but being "proper and safe" is not a threshold C even tries to uphold.
- ncruces 1y agoBut would a destructor that runs automagically when a value goes out of scope, even if it's not properly initialized (and with zero regards for copies or moves) be in any way better than a defer that's explicitly called after it is initialized? Cause, like, that's the entire thread.
- dwattttt 1y agoNope, it wouldn't be. I'm just pointing out that it being unsafe or hard to use is no barrier at all to it being in the language.
- masklinn 1y agoHell, since RAII is an opt-in type-level infectious (in the sense that if you have an RAII member in a struct the struct is RAII) mechanism you can require that RAII structs be initialised. Given the compiler would already need to know that a local is of an RAII type in order to insert the drop, move, and copy glues it’s not exactly a big requirement.