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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7a180be12347b9d3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,7a180be12347b9d3
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-21 10:16:38 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!uunet!dca.uu.net!ash.uu.net!spool0900.news.uu.net!reader0902.news.uu.net!not-for-mail
Message-ID: <3C7539CC.4080907@mail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 13:17:48 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0; en-US;
 rv:0.9.8+) Gecko/20020213
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.object
Subject: Re: Merits of re-dispatching
References: <3c70b935.501062@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
 <memo.20020218194741.37959A@brangdon.madasafish.com>
 <3c721028.221281@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3C748B15.7080005@mail.com>
 <3c74b2a0.415796@News.CIS.DFN.DE>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: KBC Financial Products
Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@mosquito.nyc.kbcfp.com
X-Cache: nntpcache 2.3.3 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10
X-Trace: 1014315395 reader2.ash.ops.us.uu.net 23434 204.253.250.10
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20224 comp.object:34827
Date: 2002-02-21T13:17:48-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.