[throwup238]

> One reason for linear types over automatic scope-based destruction is that the final destruction can take arguments and produce results in a more streamlined way. This is nice for e.g. handling errors on file close.

Couldn't the language allow something like Zig's `defer` op except tie that explicit destructor to the type?

[Rusky]

Sure, this would just desugar to normal control flow and be checked for linearity in the usual way.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by "tie to the type," though? Just some kind of standard name for it? The benefit of linearity here is that you can change its signature while still getting the compiler to enforce its usage, so you probably wouldn't want it to look like e.g. Rust's Drop trait.

[_dain_]

Because it doesn't have to be something you'd ordinarily think of as a "destructor". e.g. you might have multiple possible functions that consume the value, because you're modelling a state machine with several outgoing edges from the type-state. You get to choose the one you call.

[throwup238]

`defer` allows for executing arbitrary expressions based on scope (the "destructor" called depends on the code path)