Order of constructor/destructor invocation

[Björn Lindberg]

Jeremy Bowers wrote:

> non-interpreted languages don't specify it either. In fact, even IF
> C/C++ specifies the destructor order, which I don't care to look up
> right now, I would not be surprised that not all compilers will destruct
> in that order at the end of a function.

You're thinking of C++, and yes, the destructor order is well-defined,
and yes, all standards conformant compilers will follow this practice.
In fact, this is often used eg to manage resources.

I agree that the original approach doesn't look incredibly useful
though.


Björn