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
> > [...]
> > 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.
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 itay_maman@_yahoo_.com maman_at_il._ibm_.com [The above message expresses my personal views].
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk