[gpderetta]

> In single-ownership languages like C++, Rust, etc. we've been conflating the destructor to handle two things: fulfilling the object's final purpose, and handling exceptions/panics.

Well, from a transactional point of view, a good design for C++ classes is to have implicit destructors (i.e. a conventional C++ destructor) rollback any change, while explicit ones would commit. This works very well with exceptions.

What C++ lacks is the ability to statically prevent you from calling an explicit destructor twice, but should be doable, for example, in rust.