• claptrap (5/5) Apr 27 What the heck does elaborate mean in this context? I mean a type
• Luna (9/14) Apr 27 Elaborate refers to destructors which are not automatically
• Nick Treleaven (9/18) Apr 30 An elaborate destructor can either be directly declared for a
• Paul Backus (8/13) Apr 27 `hasElaborateDestruction!T` is `true` if and only if (a) `T` has
• Adam Wilson (5/10) Apr 28 Renamed to `hasComplexDestruction` in Phobos 3. You can even use

claptrap <clap trap.com> writes:

What the heck does elaborate mean in this context? I mean a type 
has a destructor or not right? Why is a struct destructor called 
"elaborate" and a class destructor not?

Or is this just another case of programmers cant think up 
sensible names for stuff?

Luna <luna foxgirls.gay> writes:

On Sunday, 27 April 2025 at 21:43:26 UTC, claptrap wrote:
 What the heck does elaborate mean in this context? I mean a 
 type has a destructor or not right? Why is a struct destructor 
 called "elaborate" and a class destructor not?

 Or is this just another case of programmers cant think up 
 sensible names for stuff?

Elaborate refers to destructors which are not automatically 
generated by the D compiler; eg. If you have a type with subtypes 
that can be destroyed D will automatically set up a destructor 
that handles the destruction chain for you. But if you define 
your own destructor; potentially in a template your destructor 
now becomes elaborate since it has more functionality than just 
ensuring its children are destroyed if needed. Elaborate 
destructors only apply to structs however, not classes.

Nick Treleaven <nick geany.org> writes:

On Sunday, 27 April 2025 at 22:01:11 UTC, Luna wrote:
 Elaborate refers to destructors which are not automatically 
 generated by the D compiler; eg. If you have a type with 
 subtypes that can be destroyed D will automatically set up a 
 destructor that handles the destruction chain for you. But if 
 you define your own destructor; potentially in a template your 
 destructor now becomes elaborate since it has more 
 functionality than just ensuring its children are destroyed if 
 needed. Elaborate destructors only apply to structs however, 
 not classes.

An elaborate destructor can either be directly declared for a 
type or generated by the compiler due to its fields:
```d
     static struct S2 { ~this() {} }
     static struct S3 { S2 field; }
     static assert( hasElaborateDestructor!S2);
     static assert( hasElaborateDestructor!S3);
```

Paul Backus <snarwin gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 27 April 2025 at 21:43:26 UTC, claptrap wrote:
 What the heck does elaborate mean in this context? I mean a 
 type has a destructor or not right? Why is a struct destructor 
 called "elaborate" and a class destructor not?

 Or is this just another case of programmers cant think up 
 sensible names for stuff?

`hasElaborateDestruction!T` is `true` if and only if (a) `T` has 
a destructor, and (b) a local variable of type `T` will have that 
destructor called on it at the end of its scope. It returns 
`false` for classes because classes are reference types, and the 
destructor on a class *instance* is not called when the 
*reference* goes out of scope.

A more accurate name would be `hasElaborateDestruction`.

Adam Wilson <flyboynw gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 27 April 2025 at 21:43:26 UTC, claptrap wrote:
 What the heck does elaborate mean in this context? I mean a 
 type has a destructor or not right? Why is a struct destructor 
 called "elaborate" and a class destructor not?

 Or is this just another case of programmers cant think up 
 sensible names for stuff?

Renamed to `hasComplexDestruction` in Phobos 3. You can even use 
`phobos.sys.traits` in your code right now since it's just a 
template and the module ships with the standard Phobos 
distribution.