Boost logo

Boost :

From: Itay Maman (itay_maman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-20 03:35:17

"David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Eric Friedman" <ebf_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:b2uflv$86s$
> > [...]
> > const T& r = ...;
> > r.~T();
> >
> > Even if my understanding is correct though, it may be best for destroyer
> > to take a non-const reference to avoid confusion.
> Comeau says it's ok, so I'd just leave it as is. It does seem peculiar to
> me, though.
> Dave

I was surprised to read that, but the standard says it is Kosher:


"...A destructor can be invoked for a const, volatile or const
volatile object. A destructor shall not be declared const, volatile or
const volatile (_class.this_). const and volatile semantics
(_dcl.type.cv_) are not applied on an object under destruction."

Itay Maman
[The above message expresses my personal views].

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at