Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!ucbvax!agate!darkstar!terra!daniel
From: daniel@terra.ucsc.edu (Daniel Edelson)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: explicit call to destructor
Summary: destructors need not be explicitly qualified
Message-ID: <6172@darkstar.ucsc.edu>
Date: 20 Aug 90 19:11:33 GMT
References: <867@zinn.MV.COM>
Sender: usenet@darkstar.ucsc.edu
Reply-To: daniel@cis.ucsc.edu (Daniel Edelson)
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
Lines: 30

In article <867@zinn.MV.COM> mjv@objects.mv.com (Michael J. Vilot) writes:
>Daniel Edelson points out a change to the grammar:
>> [E&S 90] section 12.4 says that when a destructor is
>> explicitly called its name must be fully qualified
>
>The copy of the book I have does not state this restriction anywhere in
>section 12.4.  The restriction is instead:
>	``An explicit call of a destructor must use -> or . explicitly.  An
>	attempt to rely on implicit use of the this pointer would lead to
>	confusion between the use of the ~ as part of the name of the
>	destructor and using the unary ~ operator''
>and uses an example on page 279 to illustrate.

Page 279 of my book is part of section 12.8, copying objects.
Perhaps I have a pre-publication version.
In my copy the annotations of section 12.4 
contain ``the fully qualified form of the destructor's name must be used
to avoid confusion between the use of the ~ as part of the name of the
destructor and the unary ~ operator as described in 5.3''
However the document X3J16-0032 contradicts this. 
I've been told from shopiro@research.att.com that p->~X() is legal,
my version of the ARM appears to be pre-publication.

>Mike Vilot,  ObjectWare Inc, Nashua NH
>mjv@objects.mv.com  (UUCP:  ...!decvax!zinn!objects!mjv)

Daniel Edelson
daniel@cis.ucsc.edu 
 or
sun!practic!peren!daniel (Perennial Software, Inc.)