The explanation of the answer for Question 17 is wrong

[justinjdickow]

The explanation of the answer for Question 17 is wrong

[knatten]

Thanks for those clarifications @bogiord! I've updated the answer now with your suggested wording, plus some references to the standard: http://cppquiz.org/quiz/question/17?result=OK&answer=abBA&did_answer=Answer

[knatten]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to notify me! The answer is now fixed: http://cppquiz.org/quiz/question/17?result=OK&answer=abBA&did_answer=Answer

[bogiord]

There are no inherited constructors in the example. Changing "inherited constructor" to "derived class constructor" would be better, I think, but still not strictly correct. According to [class.base.init]/13, the initialization of bases is part of the execution of a derived class constructor, not something that happens before it. I guess a strict wording could be:

• The base class is initialized (by calling its constructor) before the compound-statement of the derived class constructor body is executed.

or (this sounds better to me - it emphasizes who's in control):

• The derived class constructor first calls the base class constructor, and then executes the compound-statement of its own body.

(The body of the constructor includes the ctor-initializer, hence compound-statement to strictly specify what gets executed.)

Also, "inherited destructor" -> "derived class destructor", but see [class.dtor]/9 - it's the same problem. I'd say:

• The body of the derived class destructor is executed before the base class destructor.

or

• The derived class destructor first executes its own body, and then calls the base class destructor.

(The quotes are from the latest draft, but the paragraphs haven't changed since C++11, except for a tiny correction for destructors.)