Want to protect your cyber security and still get fast solutions? Ask a secure question today.Go Premium

  • Status: Solved
  • Priority: Medium
  • Security: Public
  • Views: 464
  • Last Modified:

const objects calling destructor

    i have come across a strange problem, causing conflict in concepts.

    It is known that a const object can only call const functions with the exception of constructors and destructors which are called only once and automatically. But i experienced that we can also call the destructor explicitly (c++) :?, but that violates the const object concept as we can call destuctor with it and can do any thing in the function.

   On net the only reason i found for allowing explicit destructor call is to clear the memory, but we can write some memory clean function, as we do initialization functions corresponding to initialization constuctors !!! i am not satisfied with this argument.

  so my question is why explicit call of destructor is allowed? and how is justifies the const obj concept?

  hope i can get some better reasoning from here. really looking forward for replies.

2 Solutions
As the links provided by rajeev_devin explain, the explicit destructor call is allowed as the counterpart of placement new, to make it possible to destroy an object without necessarily releasing its storage.  It's true that one could write a different function to do this, but then if the object were to be used without placement new, there would be two functions that do the same thing, which would be undesirable.  Since the concept of a destructor function that destroys an object was already defined, it was logically consistent to use the same function to do the same job in the placement new case.

The designers of the language had two choices about attempts to call the destructor of a constant object:  they could allow it or not.  If they didn't allow it, all constant objects could never be destroyed and would hang around indefinitely.  If they did allow it, a sufficiently deranged programmer could write code that would destroy a constant object.  They decided that the second case was the lesser evil.  Requiring all constant objects to have indefinite lifetimes would be both inconvenient and inefficient.  For that matter, to be consistent, you would also have to forbid running the constructors of constant objects, because they too change object content, so you could never create a constant object in the first place.  So on the whole, it is most practical to exclude construction and destruction from the class of operations that are not allowed on constant objects.
Prashant SabnekarAVPCommented:
Do not think of constructors & distructors as an ordinary member functions. These are special member functions, one initializes and other deinitializes.
Any object can call distructor explicitly, irrespective to whether it is a const or a non const.
I do not find any strange thing in const object calling distructor explicitly.
If you have a problem with,
1. const obj calling distructor, let me tell you a basic thing any thing created has to be destroyed so distructor call is a must.
2. const obj calling distructor explicitly, here objects are allowed for this.

All the best
Prashant Sabnekar

Featured Post

Free Tool: Port Scanner

Check which ports are open to the outside world. Helps make sure that your firewall rules are working as intended.

One of a set of tools we are providing to everyone as a way of saying thank you for being a part of the community.

Tackle projects and never again get stuck behind a technical roadblock.
Join Now