Re: [cdt-dev] Implicit Destructor Names (AST)

["Schorn, Markus" <Markus.Schorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My first thought was, that they should be attached to the compound
statement. 
However, that does not work for global variables. Therefore, for
simplicity
I suggest to add them to the declarator. I don't see a disadvantage with
this
approach.

Markus.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lukas Felber
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 11:29 AM
> To: CDT General developers list.
> Subject: [cdt-dev] Implicit Destructor Names (AST)
> Importance: Low
> 
> Hi
> 
> Since CDT 7.0 (I think), in code statements like 'X x;' 
> (where X is a type containing a constructor declaration) the 
> declarator x contains an implicit name which refers to X's 
> constructor. This is a very useful and also necessary feature!
> 
> However, when considering the following code {
>   X x;
> }
> one misses, beside the reference to the constructor of X, 
> also a reference to X's destructor, which, for completeness, 
> should also be part of the AST.
> 
> The question which arises here, is, where this name should 
> best be contained.
>  - The simples, but also a bit incorrect option is to put the 
> name into the declarator x. This is not really the place 
> where the destructor is called, but it is the origin which 
> causes the destructor to be called at the end of the 
> enclosing compound statement
>  - The more precise place to place the name is the end of the 
> end of the enclosing compound statement (which would mean to 
> let the interface IASTCompoundStatement extend 
> IASTImpliciteNameOwner).
> 
> What is your opinion on this matter?
> 
> 
> Best regards
> Lukas Felber
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cdt-dev mailing list
> cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cdt-dev
>