Destroy a card (using the keyword let)

As I understand it, the let keyword, locally binds variables to values (supporting some sort of pattern matching). It receives two arguments. First is a vector with the symbol we want to bind and the value we want bound. Then comes an expression that

Force the threads to leave the object before the destruction

When using multithreading I often run into the following problem: I've got an object, say a network receiver(but could be anything). And a function that gets the data. Now sometimes there simply is no data, and you want to let the thread wait to get

How to define the destructors?

public class A { double wage; A(double wage){ this.wage=wage; } } //In this code I am supposed to define the constructors as well as destructors. What is the code for defining a destructor?In Java, there are no destructors but you can use method Obje

How can i call const member function of the destructor

Is there any possible way to invoke const member function from destructor, when const object is destroyed? Consider: struct My_type { ~My_type () { show (); } void show () { cout << "void show ()" << endl; } void show () const { cout

Error: Modified X Heap Block

I was trying to use destructors for a struct. However, the compiler reported errors that Heap block at 006651F8 modified at 00665229 past requested size of 29 gift1.exe has triggered a breakpoint. #include "stdafx.h" struct Node{ char *name; int

C ++ shredders using pop_back

I'm currently learning C++ on my own and I'm having some trouble creating a destructor. Here is what the code for the main part that I'm struggling with #include <list> using namespace std; class Test { private: list<char> *tempList; public: T

What are the problems with writing like this?

I had a conversation with a friend of mine about object assignment and construction the other day, and he made a point that assignment a = b for objects is (semantically) equivalent to destroying a and then re-constructing it from b (at the same plac

C # Reflection - Finding if a class has defined a destructor

I am trying to find if a class has destructors using reflection. I do see methods to get constructors in System.Reflection. Is there a way to find if a class has defined custom destructors in C#?The destructor method seems to be called Finalize(). Al

Do trivial destructors cause aliasing?

C++11 ยง3.8.1 declares that, for an object with a trivial destructor, I can end its lifespan by assigning to its storage. I am wondering if trivial destructors can prolong the object's lifespan and cause aliasing woes by "destroying an object" th

C ++: why does not it call a destroyer?

I use extra brackets in my code. I thought when the destructor should be called after the local variable scope is ended but it doesn't work like this: class TestClass { public: TestClass() { printf( "TestClass()\n" ); } ~TestClass() { printf( &q

Delphi Destructors: Execute code after a legacy call?

is it really okay in Delphi to execute code after the inherited call in a destructor? You can find this in System.Classes: destructor TThread.Destroy; begin [...] inherited Destroy; FFatalException.Free; end; I think, that accessing an instance membe

Python file objects, closing and destructors

The description of tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile() says: If delete is true (the default), the file is deleted as soon as it is closed. In some circumstances, this means that the file is not deleted after the Python interpreter ends. For example, when r

c ++ operator overload, the destructor is called

I am trying to track how many object is created of a given class. If I overload the operator ++ in the class, the destructor is called but I don't know why. To be more specific: class num{ public: virtual void setValue(int)=0; static int db; num(){}

GC.Collect () does not collect immediately?

In the course of a discussion in chat, I wrote this console application. Code: using System; class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { CreateClass(); Console.Write("Collecting... "); GC.Collect(); Console.WriteLine("Done"); } s

How to manually delete member variables?

I have a basic question on destructors. Suppose I have the following class class A { public: int z; int* ptr; A(){z=5 ; ptr = new int[3]; } ; ~A() {delete[] ptr;}; } Now destructors are supposed to destroy an instantiation of an object. The destructo

free double or corruption when deleting an object

I have a class named "Packet" with this destruct: class Packet { ... RequestPtr req; ~Packet() { if (req && isRequest() && !needsResponse()) delete req; deleteData(); } }; The RequestPtr looks like: typedef Request* RequestPtr; c

Destroyer not be called when leaving the scope

I am learning memory management in C++ and I don't get the why only some of the destructors are called when leaving scope. In the code below, only obj1 destructor is called when myfunc ends, not for the dynamically allocated obj2. int myfunc (cl1 *oa

C ++ destructors as virtual functions?

I just read recently that its a good practice to implement C++ destructors as virtual functions[1]. Why is this so? Is this a general good practice? If not, in what conditions/cases is a destructor to be made a virtual function? Reference https://www

C ++ - destructors

In the external C++ learning resource that I'm reading. What is an example on this statement? When a variable goes out of scope, or a dynamically allocated variable is explicitly deleted using the delete keyword, the class destructor is called (if it

Two questions about Dispose () and the destructors in C #

I have a question about how to use Dispose() and destructors. Reading some articles and the MSDN documentation, this seems to be the recommended way of implementing Dispose() and destructors. But I have two questions about this implementation, that y

Side effect / Volatile / Copier Builder / Destroyer

With reference to the discussion here $3.7.1/2 - "If an object of static storage duration has initialization or a destructor with side effects, it shall not be eliminated even if it appears to be unused, except that a class object or its copy may be

Why is my Destructor called?

I have a few classes that hold references to other classes through IDictionary instance members. Like so: class A { private readonly Dictionary<int, B> _particles = new Dictionary<int, B>(); public void CreateNewB(int someInt) { var b = new B(

How can I * not * delete a member in a destructor?

I'd like the destructor of my class to delete the entire object except for one of the members, which is deleted elsewhere. First of all, is this totally unreasonable? Assuming it's not, how do I do this? I thought that created an destructor with an e

RAII vs. exceptions

The more we use RAII in C++, the more we find ourselves with destructors that do non-trivial deallocation. Now, deallocation (finalization, however you want to call it) can fail, in which case exceptions are really the only way to let anybody upstair