Re: Problem with access parameter

[402450@cepsz.unizar.es (Jano)]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> It looks that he wants a destructor for a protected object. A rightful
> wish, or? Because protected types are not and cannot be derived from
> Limited_Controlled, he tries to inject a controlled member pointing to
> the protected parent. When parent gets finalized, the member's
> Finalize is called with access to parent's as the discriminant.

Exactly what I wanted.

> -----------------------------
> Well, it seems that the trick won't work. So one should pack the
> protected object into a limited controlled type and make proxies to
> its entries and subprograms.

That's the way I've taken. It's indeed better than my original
approach (except for the need of stubs, but I don't like to expose
protected types anyway) because I wanted to free data in a Charles
polymorphic list of classwide pointers, and I didn't want to depend on
what was finalized first: the container or my destructor (even if
there are strict rules for that, it's too fine a detail to depend on
for my tastes).