Re: Merits of re-dispatching

[Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> OK, it dispatches as if it didn't. Therefore I say that it does not.

Well, you can say anything you like, but it certainly does dispatch
using the type of the constructor or destructor which is running.

> What happens internally is of no interest.

If that is so, then stop saying that it does not dispatch, because
that is true *only* internally.

> The viewpoint of C++ language, but I am not talking about C++
> definition of "dispatch" and its implementation issues.

You began this discussion by claiming that the equivalent of
redispatching from Finalize was unsafe in C++, and I have been
correcting your mistaken impressions about C++ ever since.
This has nothing whatever to do with implementations of C++,
only the definition of its behavior according to its standard.

> I still prefer a model where types of objects are not arbitrarily
> changed [no matter physically or mentally] depending on what kind of
> method is used.

You may prefer this, but that is not the way C++ works. It is the
way Ada works, which leads to the problem you originally noticed,
of redispatching to code which manipulates already Finalized members.