924
Subj : Re: Can you mimic atexit() for class functions?
To   : borland.public.cpp.borlandcpp
From : "Ed Mulroy [TeamB]" <dont_email_me@bitbuc.ket>
Date : Thu Oct 09 2003 07:06 pm

I spoke of the order of destruction of globals versus automatics and said
that a class allocated with new is destroyed when delete is called.

I did not speak of the order of destruction of globals versus statics.  I
did not discuss statics at all.

I told him that if he was uncomfortable with atexit then he could have an
instance of a class destruct at the end of the program declaring a global
instance of the class.

And no, I did not look to see that others had jumpted in to kick me in the
shorts, arguing against me on my positions on things I actually did not
mention, and no, I do not appreciate that.

And no, we were not discussing the order of globals and statics being
destructed.  We were not discussing anything.  I was discussing with the
gentleman I originally replied to how he could do something.  I took the
reply to my message as coming from Gary and did not notice that Jeff Kish
jumped in.

Now why are you in this thread, beating me up for something that I did not
say?

You should read the posts before replying.

..  Ed

> Benjamin Pratt wrote in message
> news:3f85bec0@newsgroups.borland.com...
> You should read the posts before replying.
>
> > You asked for help and I gave it.
> No I didn't, that was 'gary'.
>
> > You then argue and decide that the
> > standard doesn't tell of these things.
> First, 'Jeff Kish' pointed out that the order of creation/destruction of
> static/global objects is not defined. (that's not arguing, and that not me
> either)
>
> Second, you reply to Jeff detailing destruction of automatics and objects
> created with new. Obviously, you didn't read Jeff's post since his comment
> related to globals and statics.
>
> To clarify your hasty post, I asserted that Jeff is indeed correct. The
> destruction ORDER of GLOBALS and STATIC is NOT defined by the standard. I
> respectfully asked you to point to where in the standard this is refuted.
>
> Again, you missed the fact that we a discussing the ORDER of globals and
> statics being destructed.
>
> > You then argue
> No, you are the only one to take a argumentative tone, until now.

.

0