From: ulrich.eckhardt@dominolaser.com   
      
   Am 19.07.2012 06:24, schrieb Venkat:   
   > Member function is not virtual, nor it's access object' state.  It's   
   > working when I ran on. But I'm wondering if there is a technical   
   > reason this may blow in some context?   
      
   You could also use a null pointer to call that function, in most cases   
   it works. It is formally undefined behaviour though.   
      
   Also, a compiler that does an inspection of the call tree could figure   
   out that this calls a function on a destroyed object and react to that.   
   The only thing that currently saves you is that compilers aren't smart   
   enough yet.   
      
   You shouldn't wonder "when will this break?" but rather "is this   
   guaranteed to work?", except if you're just curious and not actually   
   planning to (ab)use this behaviour.   
      
   Greetings!   
      
   Uli   
      
      
   --   
         [ 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)