Re: Inherited Methods and such

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

On 18 Wrz, 17:25, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:

> > Then I'll pick that latter option. There is no pointer/reference to a
> > specific type in C++.
>
> "this" within a constructor/destructor?

The dynamic type of the object is then equal to its static type (the
dynamic type of the object *changes* during the process of
construction/destruction).

Still, there is no pointer/reference to a specific type in C++. The
this pointer always points to the current object, and calls to virtual
functions via this pointer are always dispatching.

There is *nothing* special about 'this' in constructor/destructor.
There is, however, something special about the relation between
dynamic and static type of the object.

Where's the difference? You can call some regular method from the
constructor/destructor and then, in that method, the 'this' pointer is
subject to regular rules - there is no tracking on where the pointer
comes from when the method is called. In other words, there is no such
a thing as "this within a constructor/destructor", because the static
type of "this" pointer and its abilities are always the same.
The only thing that is special is the dynamic type of the object,
which changes over the lifetime of the object.

> A pointer variable pointing to an object under construction/destruction?

Same. Static type is always the same. There is nothing special about
the pointer.
It's the dynamic type of the object that changes.

> I
> don't know how the C++ standard defines this, as implementation-dependent,
> or else as erroneous or else as "specific" (in Ada terms).

Neither of these.

--
Maciej Sobczak
http://www.msobczak.com/