Re: Destructor not called with forward declaration instead of include

On Apr 26, 3:42 pm, Seungbeom Kim <musip...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> You mean, when the type is incomplete but has a trivial destructor?
> Does that help much? What do we lose by requiring the type to be
> complete at a 'delete' expression with a pointer to that type?
> (On the other hand, we gain a lot of correctness assurance!)

Agree. I don't see it as an enabling feature. But undoubtedly you will
break some code, if you forbid it.

> >    virtual class Clazz; // I have a virtual destructor, promise!
> I guess the compiler may need the complete class definition even
> just to invoke the virtual destructor; e.g. it has to know which
> entry in the vtable represents the destructor.

Which seems a surmountable implementation problem, though it may
create an ABI compatibility problem.

Regards,
Vidar Hasfjord


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