In article <3gc2g7$214@news.uni-c.dk>
           mojemj@unidhp.uni-c.dk "Mogens Jensen" writes:

>
> Hi there!
>
> Some time ago I read in this group that the standard does not guarantee
> that objects are destroyed in the reverse order they are constructed (!)
>
> When using resource handling classes, which is a major issue in C++ IMHO,
> it can be vital: some resources has to be deallocated in the reverse
> order they were allocated.
>

 If this is causing you a problem, you can try something like this:

void func( void )
{
   Resource R;
   {
     SomeOther S( &R ); // S requires R for initialisation
     {
        EvenMore E( S ); // and E requires S

     } // E's destructor called hereabouts

   }  // S's destructor called hereabouts

} // R's destructor called hereabous

 It's not pretty, but it should work.

Regards,
 Andy
--
* Andy Sawyer ** e-mail:andys@thone.demon.co.uk ** Compu$erve:100432,1713 **
 The opinions expressed above are my own, but you are granted the right to
 use and freely distribute them. I accept no responsibility for any injury,
 harm or damage arising from their use.                --   The Management.