C++: destructor and delete

[Newsnet Customer]

Hi,

Statement 1: "A dynamically created local object will call it's destructor
method when it goes out of scope when a procedure returms"

Agree.
Statement 2: "A dynamically created object will call it's destructor when it
is made a target of a delete".

Does not make sense to me. Would not this result in an endless loop? (ie.
delete calls destructor and within destructor it calls delete, which in turn
calls the destructor again and so on....)

Any comments appreciated.

asasas

[jeffc]

"Andrey Tarasevich" <an**************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vl***********@news.supernews.com...

jeffc wrote:

...
Fine Ron, be pedantic if you insist. Stroustrup calls that a "simple and low-level notion of an object" and warns not to confuse it with the notion of a class object, which is what you've done - confuse things. Here's the original quote from the OP:

"> An object will always have a constructor and a destructor. If either is not

defined, they will be created for you implicitly. Since pointers are objects

too, they will have a constructor and destructor."

You go ahead and correct him and I'm sure you can come up with something
better than I did (I'm at a loss as to why you'd argue with my reply, rather than with his statement.)
...

It's been said many times here and in many other places, that TC++PL
book uses alternative non-standard terminology. Formally speaking, from
the standard C++ point of view, the above statement and a number of
other statements made in TC++PL are _completely_ _incorrect_.

It is not a matter of "correcting" or "not correcting" Mr. Stroustrup.

I'm talking about correcting the OP, not Mr. Stroustrup.
This forum, by default, uses the standard terminology. If you prefer to
use the one from TC++PL, you should accompany you messages with the
corresponding remark, to avoid unnecessary confusion.

Standard OO terminology is not unclear on the meaning of "object".

[jeffc]

"Andrey Tarasevich" <an**************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vl************@news.supernews.com...

Yes, there is. But I don't see how it is supposed to prove your point.
You were talking about "objects". Now your are talking about "built-in
types" and "instances of a class". Where is the connection?

I really don't know what bone you guys are trying to pick. The original
poster wrote
"An object will always have a constructor and a destructor. If either is not
defined, they will be created for you implicitly. Since pointers are objects
too, they will have a constructor and destructor."

I say he's wrong. If you want to argue with me about that, EOT. Otherwise
correct that statement any way you see fit.

[Ron Natalie]

"jeffc" <no****@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:3f********@news1.prserv.net...

I really don't know what bone you guys are trying to pick. The original
poster wrote
"An object will always have a constructor and a destructor. If either is not
defined, they will be created for you implicitly. Since pointers are objects
too, they will have a constructor and destructor."
As far as the C++ standard goes, the only thing that is right above is that
pointers are objects. Objects do not necessarily have constructors and destructors.
Only classes have them, pointers and other non-class types do not.

I say he's wrong. If you want to argue with me about that, EOT. Otherwise
correct that statement any way you see fit.

You're right. He's wrong.