From: Erik Max Francis Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Deconstructors Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 03:26:18 -0700 Organization: Alcyone Systems Lines: 48 Message-ID: <35B0784A.666728D4@alcyone.com> References: <35AFE02F DOT 3C4857ED AT logic-gate DOT com> <35AFEF99 DOT 29955266 AT alcyone DOT com> <35b6691c DOT 3375145 AT news DOT Austria DOT EU DOT net> <35B06FF0 DOT E4E83F1 AT alcyone DOT com> <35b0757c DOT 6543544 AT news DOT Austria DOT EU DOT net> NNTP-Posting-Host: charmaine.alcyone.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Precedence: bulk Gerhard Gruber wrote: > I just used main. You can use any other function as main is not really > special > as a function. Your example involved a block off of main, which is what I was talking about. > I will. But I really wonder about this, because this would mean that > gcc > treats classes totally different from other variables. It means that it's handling it the way the C++ definition says it should. Consider: class C { ... }; for (...) // some for loop { C c(...); // do something with c } If c isn't being created and destructed every iteration of the loop, you've got a problem. Again: construction/destruction and reservation of memory on the stack aren't necessarily one and the same, although I'm not even sure that your statement about that standard behavior is true. (It certainly isn't required by the C/C++ function model.) > Yes. I know. This was only a suggestion if somebody needs to call the > destructor functionality. What you are calling "destructor functionality" is not the same thing as what C++ does when it destructs an object. -- Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE / mailto:max AT alcyone DOT com Alcyone Systems / http://www.alcyone.com/max/ San Jose, California, United States / icbm:+37.20.07/-121.53.38 \ I put away my nine, fool / 'cause I'm colorblind. / Ice Cube