On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 09:23 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars- d wrote:
> On 4/18/17 8:48 AM, prdan wrote:
> > Thanks, maybe I will write a blog post about my experiences also.
> 
> That would be great! Michael Parker may be of help if you consider publishing in the official D Blog. -- Andrei

And I am sure CVu or Overload can publish an article on this if you were to write one.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On 04/18/2017 10:55 AM, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-04-18 at 09:23 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-
> d wrote:
>> On 4/18/17 8:48 AM, prdan wrote:
>>> Thanks, maybe I will write a blog post about my experiences also.
>>
>> That would be great! Michael Parker may be of help if you consider
>> publishing in the official D Blog. -- Andrei
>
> And I am sure CVu or Overload can publish an article on this if you
> were to write one.

That would be fantastic, thanks for this great idea. prdan please push this forward! -- Andrei

On 04/18/2017 03:00 AM, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
>> D would have the ability to have a nice container that would do RAII
>> (for classes since for structs, __dtors are called automatically)
>
> That's just it, though. They are not. Not reliably.

Yah, clearly there's a problem with the language implementation (and the definition that is incomplete, leaving too much leeway to the implementation). Clearly the way to go is fix the bug, which has been preapproved and of raised gravity. That would obviate the entire "implementation has a bug therefore language does not support RAII" line of reasoning. Thanks Stefan for looking into this! -- Andrei

On Tuesday, 18 April 2017 at 16:42:38 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 04/18/2017 03:00 AM, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
>>> D would have the ability to have a nice container that would do RAII
>>> (for classes since for structs, __dtors are called automatically)
>>
>> That's just it, though. They are not. Not reliably.
>
> Yah, clearly there's a problem with the language implementation (and the definition that is incomplete, leaving too much leeway to the implementation). Clearly the way to go is fix the bug, which has been preapproved and of raised gravity. That would obviate the entire "implementation has a bug therefore language does not support RAII" line of reasoning. Thanks Stefan for looking into this! -- Andrei

This is going to be tricky without breaking code which worked around the bug.