|[8 earlier articles]|
|Re: exceptions & dataflow email@example.com (1998-02-10)|
|Re: exceptions & dataflow firstname.lastname@example.org (1998-02-10)|
|Re: exceptions & dataflow email@example.com (Jason Merrill) (1998-02-12)|
|Re: exceptions & dataflow firstname.lastname@example.org (Fergus Henderson) (1998-02-12)|
|Re: exceptions & dataflow email@example.com (David Chase) (1998-02-12)|
|Re: exceptions & dataflow firstname.lastname@example.org (Amit Bhatnagar) (1998-02-12)|
|Re: exceptions & dataflow email@example.com (David L Moore) (1998-02-14)|
|Re: exceptions & dataflow firstname.lastname@example.org (Sergey Solyanik) (1998-02-14)|
|Re: exceptions & dataflow email@example.com (Jerry Leichter) (1998-02-14)|
|From:||David L Moore <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||14 Feb 1998 14:33:20 -0500|
Amit Bhatnagar wrote:
> I accidently found out that within a block the destructors of the
> objects inside that block are NOT called in C++. They are only called
> when the stack for the function call winds up. Do u think this is a
> good approach?
I don't believe delaying destructors until the function exits
(normally exceptions are different) rather than when the block exits
is a conforming implementation of C++. Section 12.4, para 10 of the
draft C++ standard seems to be quite explicit that calling the
destructor at block exit is required behaviour.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.