From 5917205514459242313
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,64409d9769f709f0
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,64409d9769f709f0
X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public
From: "Jason Hunter" <jthunter@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Is this legal C++?
Date: 1998/08/06
Message-ID: <01bdc170$c51f6970$17031712@dialup-337>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 378618165
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup-337.lcs.mit.edu
Approved: stephen.clamage@sun.com (comp.std.c++)
References: <01bdc100$f82d21b0$19011a12@bwing>
X-UID: 0000000001
X-Status: $$$T
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.std.c++
Originator: clamage@taumet

> 	Foo() 
> 	{ 
> 		T a;
> 
> 		a.T::Bar();		// this works!
> 		a.T::T();			// C2039: 'T' is not a member of Bar.
> 	}
> };
> 

As a followup to my own question, I wanted to point out that it is the 
explicit call to the constructor that I am interested in.  For those not
clear, 
this causes the constructor to be called on the "a" object again without
the destructor being called.  (Actually this is a paired down example
the real storage is allocated from an untyped block of memory and has never

been initialized - that is why I need to explicitly call the constructor on
it
because it has not yet been called.)

 Thanks, 
 
 Jason Hunter
 jthunter[PLEASE REMOVE THIS - SPAMBLOCK]@mit.edu
 


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html              ]