Issue 16600: Is it allowed to omit super destructor calls in an explicit destructor? (alf-rtf) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant Summary: Assume we have an object typed by a class C which inherits another class D. If an object of C is destroyed by calling an explicit destructor, and this destructor does not contain any call to a super destructor of D, what will then happen? Will the object be destroyed without calling any destructor in the super class? This would seem error-prone. We need a clarification whether this is allowed or not, and if it is allowed how the super-class part of the object will be destroyed. Resolution: The FTF agrees that this is an issue worth considering, but, due to lack of time, decided to defer its resolution to a future RTF working on this specification. Revised Text: None Disposition: Deferred Revised Text: Actions taken: October 14, 2011: received issue October 5, 2012: deferred Discussion: End of Annotations:===== m: webmaster@omg.org Date: 14 Oct 2011 06:18:17 -0400 To: Subject: Issue/Bug Report ******************************************************************************* Name: Mattias Mohlin Employer: IBM mailFrom: mattias.mohlin@se.ibm.com Terms_Agreement: I agree Specification: ALF Section: 10.5.3.2 FormalNumber: ptc/2010-10-05 Version: FTF ­ Beta 1 Doc_Year: 2010 Doc_Month: October Doc_Day: 05 Page: 170-171 Title: Is it allowed to omit super destructor calls in an explicit destructor? Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant CODE: 3TMw8 B1: Report Issue Description: Assume we have an object typed by a class C which inherits another class D. If an object of C is destroyed by calling an explicit destructor, and this destructor does not contain any call to a super destructor of D, what will then happen? Will the object be destroyed without calling any destructor in the super class? This would seem error-prone. We need a clarification whether this is allowed or not, and if it is allowed how the super-class part of the object will be destroyed.