Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!agate!darkstar!terra.ucsc.edu!daniel
From: daniel@terra.ucsc.edu (Daniel Edelson)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: explicit call to destructor
Keywords: explicit call to destructor, grammar, syntax, E&S90
Message-ID: <6035@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
Date: 15 Aug 90 19:01:40 GMT
Sender: usenet@darkstar.ucsc.edu
Reply-To: daniel@terra.ucsc.edu (Daniel Edelson)
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (and Perennial Software)
Lines: 33

[E&S 90] section 12.4 says that when a destructor is
explicitly called its name must be fully qualified:
i.e., p->X::~X() rather than p->~X(). 
The relevant productions in this grammar (for an example
that uses ->) are:

	expression ... cast-expression ... postfix-expression ... name

	name:
		qualified-name
	
	qualified-name:
		class-name :: ~ class-name

Document X3J16/90-0032, ``Differences Between the 
C++ Reference Manuals'' (errata in the version of 
[E&S 90] that was distributed at the March 1990
X3J16 meeting) contradicts this. This document has the
production

	name:
		~ class-name

This will permit an explicit call to the destructor 
without use of the fully qualified name.

Is the revised document correct or is this an errata in the
grammar in the errata list? 

Daniel Edelson
daniel@cis.ucsc.edu	(University of California, Santa Cruz)
 or
...!sun!practic!peren!daniel (Perennial Software, Inc.)