From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2a993df02f6d82f1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Hyman Rosen <hymie@prolifics.com>
Subject: Re: More questions...
Date: 1999/03/09
Message-ID: <36E59D1A.65ADB66E@prolifics.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 453139717
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <7bvb4j$lt0$1@remarQ.com> <7c40uu$14lu@news3.newsguy.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: usenet@panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 921017581 13356 207.19.14.254 (9 Mar 1999 22:13:01
 GMT)
Organization: Prolifics
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Mar 1999 22:13:01 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-03-09T22:13:01+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Samuel Mize wrote:
> OTOH, when you assign a new value to an object with a destructor, does
> C++ call the destructor before assigning the new value?  Or is that even
> a meaningful question for C++?

In C++ classes may have user-defined assignment operators. If a class has
such a thing, then it is invoked when the assignment is done, and it is
responsible for doing the necessary cleanup work. If a class does not have
a user-defined assignment operator, then the default behavior is to treat
assignment as a field-by-field copy, recursively invoking other user-defined
assignment operators if fields are themselves class objects.

Note that in C++, assigning to an object does not have the semantics of
destroying the object and replacing it with a new one. The object is
considered to be the same before and after the assignment. It merely has
had its value changed in some fashion.