"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:b2ug4i$a8q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Eric Friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:b2uflv$86s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [...]
> > const T& r = ...;
> > r.~T();
> >
> > Even if my understanding is correct though, it may be best for destroyer
> > to take a non-const reference to avoid confusion.
>
> Comeau says it's ok, so I'd just leave it as is. It does seem peculiar to
> me, though.
>
> Dave
>
I was surprised to read that, but the standard says it is Kosher:
[12.4.2]
"...A destructor can be invoked for a&! nbsp; const, volatile or const
volatile object. A destructor shall not be declared const, volatile or
const volatile (_class.this_). const and volatile semantics
(_dcl.type.cv_) are not applied on an object under destruction."
--
Itay Maman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[The above message expresses my personal views].