Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 20:00:15 +0100
Il 01/02/22 18:02, Sébastien Bini via Std-Proposals ha scritto:
> Not sure I understand. Why would the compiler decide to destroy
> other.ptr in the relocation constructor? And having other destructed
> again is a programming error (like doing: `IntBuffer x; x.~IntPtr();` x
> is destructed twice) and should not happen. Using the reloc operator
> guarantees things will be safe.
Apologies for the confusion, I was referring to the scenario where it
would be a QoI whether a relocated object is considered destroyed or its
destructor would be ran nevertheless. In such a scenario _a lot_ of
things start falling apart.
My 2 c,
> Not sure I understand. Why would the compiler decide to destroy
> other.ptr in the relocation constructor? And having other destructed
> again is a programming error (like doing: `IntBuffer x; x.~IntPtr();` x
> is destructed twice) and should not happen. Using the reloc operator
> guarantees things will be safe.
Apologies for the confusion, I was referring to the scenario where it
would be a QoI whether a relocated object is considered destroyed or its
destructor would be ran nevertheless. In such a scenario _a lot_ of
things start falling apart.
My 2 c,
-- Giuseppe D'Angelo | giuseppe.dangelo_at_[hidden] | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, http://www.kdab.com KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
Received on 2022-02-01 19:00:19