Is it hidden if it's explained in the standard?
I think Linus's complain was before there was a c++ standard. An updated version of the complaint would be "this shit is doing too much".
I think Linus's complain was before there was a c++ standard. An updated version of the complaint would be "this shit is doing too much".
They're not, all destructors are explicit. Seems like a skill issue on your end.
Here's a fun one for your amusement:
foo(a, b, c);
It is nice that the compiler does the dirty work for you, but the various paths with exceptions and recovery with invisible code may not be well tested.
You're talking to walter bright, the guy who wrote the digital mars C++ compiler
Okay.
In the context of that particular complaint, yes. From what I understand the gist of it is basically that you should be able to tell what is going on by looking at the code locally (i.e., the code is "explicit").
> I think Linus's complain was before there was a c++ standard.
These emails [0]? IIRC those are the most well-known ones and they are from the mid-2000s