Daniel Edelson points out a change to the grammar:
> [E&S 90] section 12.4 says that when a destructor is
> explicitly called its name must be fully qualified

The copy of the book I have does not state this restriction anywhere in
section 12.4.  The restriction is instead:
 ``An explicit call of a destructor must use -> or . explicitly.  An
 attempt to rely on implicit use of the this pointer would lead to
 confusion between the use of the ~ as part of the name of the
 destructor and using the unary ~ operator''
and uses an example on page 279 to illustrate.

In any event, the language is more than just the grammar.  The qualified
name is still available through the productions:

 name:
  qualified-name
 qualified-name:
  qualified-class-name :: name
 name:
  ~ class-name

The usual semantic differentiations apply, and using the fully qualified
name suppresses the dynamic binding of virtual functions.

What may astound some people is the change on page 280:

 ``The notation for explicit call of a destructor may be used for
 any simple type name.  For example,
  int* p;
  // ...
  p->int::~int();''

--
Mike Vilot,  ObjectWare Inc, Nashua NH
mjv@objects.mv.com  (UUCP:  ...!decvax!zinn!objects!mjv)

In article <867@zinn.MV.COM> mjv@objects.mv.com (Michael J. Vilot) writes:
>Daniel Edelson points out a change to the grammar:
>> [E&S 90] section 12.4 says that when a destructor is
>> explicitly called its name must be fully qualified
>
>The copy of the book I have does not state this restriction anywhere in
>section 12.4.  The restriction is instead:
> ``An explicit call of a destructor must use -> or . explicitly.  An
> attempt to rely on implicit use of the this pointer would lead to
> confusion between the use of the ~ as part of the name of the
> destructor and using the unary ~ operator''
>and uses an example on page 279 to illustrate.

Page 279 of my book is part of section 12.8, copying objects.
Perhaps I have a pre-publication version.
In my copy the annotations of section 12.4
contain ``the fully qualified form of the destructor's name must be used
to avoid confusion between the use of the ~ as part of the name of the
destructor and the unary ~ operator as described in 5.3''
However the document X3J16-0032 contradicts this.
I've been told from shopiro@research.att.com that p->~X() is legal,
my version of the ARM appears to be pre-publication.

>Mike Vilot,  ObjectWare Inc, Nashua NH
>mjv@objects.mv.com  (UUCP:  ...!decvax!zinn!objects!mjv)

Daniel Edelson
daniel@cis.ucsc.edu
 or
sun!practic!peren!daniel (Perennial Software, Inc.)

[E&S 90] section 12.4 says that when a destructor is
explicitly called its name must be fully qualified:
i.e., p->X::~X() rather than p->~X().
The relevant productions in this grammar (for an example
that uses ->) are:

 expression ... cast-expression ... postfix-expression ... name

 name:
  qualified-name

 qualified-name:
  class-name :: ~ class-name

Document X3J16/90-0032, ``Differences Between the
C++ Reference Manuals'' (errata in the version of
[E&S 90] that was distributed at the March 1990
X3J16 meeting) contradicts this. This document has the
production

 name:
  ~ class-name

This will permit an explicit call to the destructor
without use of the fully qualified name.

Is the revised document correct or is this an errata in the
grammar in the errata list?

Daniel Edelson
daniel@cis.ucsc.edu (University of California, Santa Cruz)
 or
...!sun!practic!peren!daniel (Perennial Software, Inc.)