From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:29:29 -0800
From: Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@sun.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] I like this one
In-reply-to: <5B08A2ED-67FB-4B6E-8078-277CE0F1AE23@mac.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Message-id: <1201645769.28153.100.camel@work.sfbay.sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <13426df10801291350l2d97b5ecv951f993eabcd3eb5@mail.gmail.com>
	<14ec7b180801291357v1af6149buda721536a361b173@mail.gmail.com>
	<5B08A2ED-67FB-4B6E-8078-277CE0F1AE23@mac.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3ca510dc-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 17:11 -0500, Pietro Gagliardi wrote:
> I don't get it... But why would you control how constructors are run?

  You don't unless you're totally worried about your job security and
would want to make maintenance of your code code virtually
impossible. ;-) C++ at least was smart enough not to promise anything
about the sequencing of constructors for global objects.

  Now, I can bet money that the reason they did it is for shared
libraries. And that opens up a whole new can of worms right there.

Thanks,
Roman.