vinoski@apollo.hp.com (Steve Vinoski) writes:
>>
>>template <class T> void destroy(T* obj) {
>>
>> obj->T::~T();    // BUG confused templates
>[rest of example elided]

>BTW, note that the syntax "obj->T::~T();" suppresses the virtual
>destructor invocation mechanism.  What you probably want most often in
>this situation is "obj->~T();".  See page 280 of the ARM.

In cases where I have tried the ->~ notation, I have experienced
complaints by the compiler.  Although the annotations to the RM on
page 280 seem to show that the syntax is allowable, and that it
represents a virtual call of the destructor, the RM itself (pg 278)
says:

             "Destructors are invoked [...] (4) explicitly using the
              destructor's fully qualified name."

The commentary following this statement shows a destructor being
called via p->X::~X();

Does anybody know what the actual rule is?  Can a destructor be called
without a qualified name?

--
Robert Martin       | Design Consulting   | Training courses offered:
Object Mentor Assoc.| rmartin@rcmcon.com  |   Object Oriented Analysis
2080 Cranbrook Rd.  | Tel: (708) 918-1004 |   Object Oriented Design
Green Oaks IL 60048 | Fax: (708) 918-1023 |   C++