«

shura wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> Situation:
>
> class A
> {
> B m_B;
> C m_C;
> };
>
> Can I assume that for all C++ compilers
> the order of subobjects creation is:
> m_B first then m_C.
> and the order of destruction is
> m_C first then m_B.

yes. Thats how it is defined to be.

--
Karl Heinz Buchegger

"shura" <remove-shura-> wrote...
> Situation:
>
> class A
> {
> B m_B;
> C m_C;
> };
>
> Can I assume that for all C++ compilers
> the order of subobjects creation is:
> m_B first then m_C.
> and the order of destruction is
> m_C first then m_B.

I don't think it's good to _assume_, but the order
you describe is required by the Standard. So, all
Standard-compliant compilers should do it that way.

Victor

Hi!

Situation:

class A
{
B m_B;
C m_C;
};

Can I assume that for all C++ compilers
the order of subobjects creation is:
m_B first then m_C.
and the order of destruction is
m_C first then m_B.

In article <bg8d23$dk4$>,
shura <remove-shura-> wrote:
>Situation:
>
>class A
>{
> B m_B;
> C m_C;
>};
>
>Can I assume that for all C++ compilers
>the order of subobjects creation is:
> m_B first then m_C.
>and the order of destruction is
> m_C first then m_B.

Yes. Of course, B may have its own subobjects and so on.
--
Greg Comeau/ 4.3.0.1: FULL CORE LANGUAGE, INCLUDING TC1
Comeau C/C++ ONLINE ==> http://www.comeaucomputing.com/tryitout
World Class Compilers: Breathtaking C++, Amazing C99, Fabulous C90.
Comeau C/C++ with Dinkumware's Libraries... Have you tried it?