On Tue, 17 Nov 2020 at 19:25, David Hagood <david.hagood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm sorry, you have the right to your opinion, but I disagree, and so do > many of the people on the ISO standards committee for the language, as How many of them have you asked? You know you're talking to the chair of the ISO standards committee's Library Working Group? Have you checked what the C++ Core Guidelines say about this? https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppCoreGuidelines.md#Rnr-two-phase-init > do many people doing safety critical and mission critical work. While > the behavior of the compiler generated code is specified in the case of > a throw in a constructor, the problem is that the compiler has no way to > understand the user generated code in the destructor, The destructor won't be run because the object hasn't been constructed yet. I strongly suggest that you take your own advice and read More Effective C++, specifically Item 10. > and thus can take > incorrect action. Several software architecture standards codify > two-phase construction and destruction for precisely that reason.
