From: daniel.kruegler@googlemail.com   
      
   Am 03.03.2012 21:09, schrieb Seungbeom Kim:   
   > On 2012-03-02 02:35, Daniel Kr=FCgler wrote:   
   >>   
   >> Note that there is no fundamental need for a constructor to see the   
   >> complete type. The language explicitly describes when this is   
   >> well-defined (The short version is: If the type has a non-trivial   
   >> destructor or a class-specific deallocation function).   
   >   
   > Did you mean: (with the changed parts in emphasis)   
   >   
   > "Note that there is no fundamental need for a *destructor* to see the   
   > complete type. The language explicitly describes when this is   
   > *undefined* (The short version is: If the type has a non-trivial   
   > destructor or a class-specific deallocation function)."   
   >   
   > I guessed it from 5.3.5[expr.delete]/5. :)   
      
   Yes, I meant exactly that - I apologize for my hasty reply which has   
   caused some confusion.   
      
   Greetings from Bremen,   
      
   Daniel Krügler   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)