[nyanpasu64]

I'd say that method chaining (referential transparency, etc.) and implicit destructor calls with side effects don't mix.

I have a general rule that "resource" types which own a heap allocation should usually be given a variable name with explicit scope (and likely even an explicit type, rather than `auto response` like in this post). This is a general guideline to avoid holding a reference to a temporary that gets destroyed, but doesn't protect against returning a dangling reference into a resource type from a function.

In other places, where languages make the opposite decision (from this blog post) to extend the lifetime of a temporary variable with a destructor when you call methods on it, you get things like C++'s temporary lifetime extension (not a bug, note that I don't understand it well), and footguns like Rust's `match lock.lock().something {}` (https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/blob/master/design-me...).