🚀 go-pugleaf

Daniel Edelson points out a change to the grammar:
> [E&S 90] section 12.4 says that when a destructor is
> explicitly called its name must be fully qualified

The copy of the book I have does not state this restriction anywhere in
section 12.4.  The restriction is instead:
	``An explicit call of a destructor must use -> or . explicitly.  An
	attempt to rely on implicit use of the this pointer would lead to
	confusion between the use of the ~ as part of the name of the
	destructor and using the unary ~ operator''
and uses an example on page 279 to illustrate.

In any event, the language is more than just the grammar.  The qualified
name is still available through the productions:

	name:
		qualified-name
	qualified-name:
		qualified-class-name :: name
	name:
		~ class-name

The usual semantic differentiations apply, and using the fully qualified
name suppresses the dynamic binding of virtual functions.

What may astound some people is the change on page 280:

	``The notation for explicit call of a destructor may be used for
	any simple type name.  For example,
		int* p;
		// ...
		p->int::~int();''

--
Mike Vilot,  ObjectWare Inc, Nashua NH
mjv@objects.mv.com  (UUCP:  ...!decvax!zinn!objects!mjv)