Hi Edward, hi Brian,

Edward, in your 18 Jan 2023 17:38:30 +0000 e-mail you wrote

> Although it does weigh towards suggesting that it might be
> worth considering relaxing that UB.

Maybe, instead of nitpicking on minute elements of the C++ standard, something
like the following relaxation of item #10, section 14.4 could be considered:

    10 Referring to any non-static member,
            non-basic type data member,
       or base class of an object in the handler for a function-try-block of a
       constructor or destructor for that object results in undefined
       behavior.

It's not a big issue, but it's always nice when it's clear why rules
exist, and in the current version of #10 that doesn't seem to be completely
true.

It's obvious that class type data members cannot be used in constructor
function-try-block handlers, as their destructors have already been called by
the time execution enters those handlers, but as basic-type data members don't
have destructors they remain available for as long as the object's memory
remains available (or am I missing something and are there some spooky
things going on by the time the handlers begin their executions?).

In any case, thanks a heap for replying to my postings. For now I'll make sure
that my code obeys #10, but who knows, maybe the rule will/can be relaxed :-)

Kind regards,

-- 
    Frank B. Brokken
    (+31) 6 5353 2509
    PGP Key Fingerprint: DF32 13DE B156 7732 E65E  3B4D 7DB2 A8BE EAE4 D8AA