Re: Destructor not called with forward declaration instead of include

On Apr 22, 6:13 pm, Brendan <catph...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> What I'm actually iffy on, is why you can compile code that deletes a
> pointer to an incomplete type at all. This compiles with only a
> warning about deleting a pointer to an incomplete type on VC9.

I agree that the standard should at least require a diagnostic if
doesn't already do so. I guess forbidding it is difficult because it
actually works fine when the type has a trivial destructor.

An interesting question is what is the minimal type information
required for the compiler to handle this correctly? Could a language
extension allow this to be handled without requiring the full type to
be revealed (and thus require the user to break encapsulation or
redesign the class hierarchy). Could the following be enough?

   virtual class Clazz; // I have a virtual destructor, promise!

This topic, partially complete types, was discussed earlier in this
group.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++.moderated/browse_frm/thread/9f05934ee81e120b

Regards,
Vidar Hasfjord


-- 
      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm
for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]