> On 2010-07-03 22:44:14, David Faure wrote:
> > I was initially against this kind of thing (too many problems with
> > "intelligent" destructors), this is why it hasn't been done before.
> > But after long consideration, I think this one is safe and, as you say,
> > somewhat expected by users
> On 2010-07-03 22:44:14, David Faure wrote:
> > I was initially against this kind of thing (too many problems with
> > "intelligent" destructors), this is why it hasn't been done before.
> > But after long consideration, I think this one is safe and, as you say,
> > somewhat expected by users
> On 2010-07-03 22:44:14, David Faure wrote:
> > I was initially against this kind of thing (too many problems with
> > "intelligent" destructors), this is why it hasn't been done before.
> > But after long consideration, I think this one is safe and, as you say,
> > somewhat expected by users
> On 2010-07-03 22:44:14, David Faure wrote:
> > I was initially against this kind of thing (too many problems with
> > "intelligent" destructors), this is why it hasn't been done before.
> > But after long consideration, I think this one is safe and, as you say,
> > somewhat expected by users
