Mathias Gaunard wrote:
On 27/04/12 01:59, Peter Dimov wrote:
Mathias Gaunard wrote:
I suppose you probably want to say that the type you're accessing the object with is actually the dynamic type of the object, but that idea is not supported anywhere in the standard.
3.8, object lifetime.
In lack of a proper explanation, I will assume that your argument is that the array member lifetime has ended and you're re-using its storage to store an object of a different type.
Is that what you meant?
Assuming this is true (which I'm not entirely sure of, the fact that it is a subobject might be a problem), there still is 3.8/7 to consider, which does not allow you to re-use the storage for any other type if there is any reference to the original object.
I don't see how the copy constructor of the class could avoid referring to the original object.
Interesting point. In make_shared's case, there's no need for the class to have a copy constructor. However, you may be right that one can't just create a new object in the middle of an existing object, under a very strict reading.