Re: Merits of re-dispatching

[Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> That's the whole point. Dispatching vs. not dispatching is not an
> implementation detail, but a part of the contract. It seems that we
> are using different definitions of dispatch, thus we'll never agree.

Yes, it's part of the contract, and in C++ it always dispatches.
There is only one definition of dispatch that I'm aware of - when
a virtual method is called through a pointer to an object, the method
actually called is determined by the actual type of the object, not
the declared type of the pointer. In C++, it is this actual type which
changes as control progresses through the hierarchy of constructors
or destructors.

> No. I said exactly the opposite:
> "The behaviour of B::~B is safe."

Here is what you said in your original message:
	C++ and Ada 95 support re-dispatching,
	which I think is inherently unsafe

> I definitely do not want that self-contradictory mixture
 > of types and their closures as in C++.

I don't even know what this means. C++ does not have
"self-contradictory" types.