On Friday, 11 May 2012 at 15:23:10 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> I'll wait for an answer before thinking more about this.  It feels imminently solvable...
>
> -Steve

Did you come across any ideas? :)

On Thu, 31 May 2012 03:25:40 -0400, Mehrdad <wfunction@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 11 May 2012 at 15:23:10 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> I'll wait for an answer before thinking more about this.  It feels imminently solvable...
>>
>> -Steve
>
> Did you come across any ideas? :)

Sorry lost track of this.  I'll think about it again.

-Steve

On Thursday, 31 May 2012 at 10:58:51 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 03:25:40 -0400, Mehrdad <wfunction@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 11 May 2012 at 15:23:10 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> I'll wait for an answer before thinking more about this.  It feels imminently solvable...
>>>
>>> -Steve
>>
>> Did you come across any ideas? :)
>
> Sorry lost track of this.  I'll think about it again.
>
> -Steve

o lol. ok.

Do you think it'd be difficult to add an extra layer of indirection for calling the current "constructors"/finalizers? I feel like, if DMD would just look for a __construct and a __destroy static method instead of directly calling the constructor/finalizer, it'd all work out nicely...

I just added this:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8177


I don't understand the DMD code well enough to implement this
myself (the identifiers are all Greek to me...), but I honestly
think implementing it should be relatively simple, since the
default implementations are trivial (and I don't think it
requires too much code to be changed in DMD).



If someone could implement it -- or perhaps guide me through
where I should look/how I could implement it myself -- I'd really
appreciate it. :) Thanks!