Add cross-references between [basic.life], #6058
Conversation
[class.cdtor] and [except.handle]. To resolve confusion noted in cplusplus/CWG#204
|
Now that pseudo-destructors also end the lifetime of scalar objects, is there a latent Core issue lurking here? |
I don't feel there is. A scalar pseudo-destructor is necessarily trivial, so [class.cdtor] isn't needed, and [basic.life] is written in terms of destruction of the object, which is what a pseudo-destructor does https://eel.is/c++draft/expr.call#5.sentence-2 . Am I missing something? |
|
These references may be helpful. @jensmaurer do you think there could be a more concise way of placing those references? |
| \begin{note} | ||
| For an object with a non-trivial constructor or destructor, see also~\ref{class.cdtor}. | ||
| \end{note} |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We already have this cross-reference in line 3425:
For an object under construction or destruction, see~\ref{class.cdtor}.
In general, [class.cdtor] describes behavior for objects under construction or destruction, and [basic.life] describes behavior for objects that are (entirely) out-of-lifetime.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And yes, "object" might be a subobject.
| \begin{note} | ||
| For an object with a non-trivial constructor or destructor, see also~\ref{class.cdtor}. | ||
| \end{note} |
|
@tkoeppe, I'm not happy about the verbose notes, and I'm not sure they clarify anything. If there is some problem with the wording (e.g. because [class.cdtor] wants to be in [basic.life]), we should entertain that as a CWG issue with a specific suggestion for a change. |
|
@ecatmur Could you please file a CWG issue if there is a need for clarification? |
[class.cdtor] and [except.handle].
To resolve confusion noted in
cplusplus/CWG#204