On Monday, 31 March 2014 at 15:24:03 UTC, Meta wrote:
> On Monday, 31 March 2014 at 15:22:23 UTC, Meta wrote:
>> What's the title on Hackernews? I can't seem to find it.
> Eh, nevermind, found it.

> Hackernews really needs a search function.

Erm thats where I am coming from, the search feature is there at
the bottom, take a look at the footer.

I have a slightly tangential question, repeating what I asked on
HN

Can't the destructor issue of scopebuffer be mitigated by using

      hasElaborateDestructor( )

For instance have two versions one with a destructor for non POD
and another without. The compiler dispatches to the appropriate
one at compile time. There should not be any loss in performance.

On Monday, 31 March 2014 at 23:57:09 UTC, srean wrote:
> On Monday, 31 March 2014 at 15:24:03 UTC, Meta wrote:
>> On Monday, 31 March 2014 at 15:22:23 UTC, Meta wrote:
>>> What's the title on Hackernews? I can't seem to find it.
>> Eh, nevermind, found it.
>
>> Hackernews really needs a search function.
>
> Erm thats where I am coming from, the search feature is there at
> the bottom, take a look at the footer.
>
> I have a slightly tangential question, repeating what I asked on
> HN
>
> Can't the destructor issue of scopebuffer be mitigated by using
>
>       hasElaborateDestructor( )
>
> For instance have two versions one with a destructor for non POD
> and another without. The compiler dispatches to the appropriate
> one at compile time. There should not be any loss in performance.

Ah, you're right. That could definitely be better placed... I generally read the Hackernews RSS feed, not the site itself, so I'm not well-accustomed to the actual site.

Not a question to you in particular, but dont know how to add to
a thread without replying.

I am very curious about the following (I think by the time I had
clarified my question Walter had left the building)

>> I have a slightly tangential question, repeating what I asked on HN
>>
>> Can't the destructor issue of scopebuffer be mitigated by using
>>
>>      hasElaborateDestructor( )
>>
>> For instance have two versions one with a destructor for non  POD
>> and another without. The compiler dispatches to the appropriate
>> one at compile time. There should not be any loss in performance.

On Monday, 31 March 2014 at 23:57:09 UTC, srean wrote:
> Can't the destructor issue of scopebuffer be mitigated by using
>
>       hasElaborateDestructor( )
>
> For instance have two versions one with a destructor for non POD
> and another without. The compiler dispatches to the appropriate
> one at compile time. There should not be any loss in performance.

Andrei suggested something similar on github a couple weeks ago:

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/pull/2014#issuecomment-37947056