Such addition is great. But there is something even better - destructors in C++. Anyone who writes C should consider using C++ instead, where destructors provide a more convenient way for resources freeing.
C++ destructors are implicit, while defer is explicit.
You can just look at the code in front of you to see what defer is doing. With destructors, you need to know what type you have (not always easy to tell), then find its destructor, and all the destructors of its parent classes, to work out what's going to happen.
Sure, if the situation arises frequently, it's nice to be able to design a type that "just works" in C++. But if you need to clean up reliably in just this one place, C++ destructors are a very clunky solution.
Implicitness of destructors isn't a problem, it's an advantage - it makes code shorter. Freeing resources in an explicit way creates too much boilerplate and is bug-prone.
> With destructors, you need to know what type you have (not always easy to tell), then find its destructor, and all the destructors of its parent classes, to work out what's going to happen
Isn't it a code quality issue? It should be clear from class name/description what can happen in its destructor. And if it's not clear, it's not that relevant.
It's absolutely a problem. Classically, you spend most of your time reading and debugging code, not writing it. When there's an issue pertaining to RAII, it is hidden away, potentially requiring looking at many subclasses etc.
Desctructors are only comparable when you build an OnScopeExit class which calls a user-provided lambda in its destructor which then does the cleanup work - so it's more like a workaround to build a defer feature using C++ features.
The classical case of 'one destructor per class' would require to design the entire code base around classes which comes with plenty of downsides.
> Anyone who writes C should consider using C++ instead
Nah thanks, been there, done that. Switching back to C from C++ about 9 years ago was one of my better decisions in life ;)
I think destructors are different, not better. A destructor can’t automatically handle the case where something doesn’t need to be cleaned up on an early return until something else occurs. Also, destructors are a lot of boilerplate for a one-off cleanup.
> A destructor can’t automatically handle the case where something doesn’t need to be cleaned up on an early return
It can. An object with destructor doing clean-up should be created only after such clean-up is needed. In case of a file, for example, a file object should be created at file opening, so that it can close the file in its destructor.
That’s fine when one wants to write a whole class for something. But sometimes a cleanup path is genuinely a one-off, and using something like defer is nice.
> but absolutely no one is going to switch from C to C++ just for dtors
The decision would be easier if the C subset in C++ would be compatible with modern C standards instead of being a non-standard dialect of C stuck in ca. 1995.
For two reasons: First, where C++ features are used, it make the code harder to understand rather than easier. Second, it requires newer and more complex toolchains to build GCC itself. Some people still maintain the last C version of GCC just to keep the bootstrap path open.
This is not my experience at all. In fact, my experience is where C++ is used in GCC it became harder to read. Note that GCC was written in C and then introduced C++ features later so this is not hypothetical.
In general, I think clean C code is easier to read than C++ due to much less complexity and not having language features that make it more difficult to understand by hiding crucial information from the reader (overloading, references, templates, auto, ..).
For the cases where a destructor isn’t readily available, you can write a defer class that runs a lambda passed to its constructor in its destructor, can’t you?
Would be a bit clunky, but that can (¿somewhat?) be hidden in a macro, if desired.
