CWG2993 [dcl.fct.def.general] Informal references to the "body" of a destructor

[hubert-reinterpretcast]

Full name of submitter (unless configured in github; will be published with the issue): Hubert Tong

Reference (section label): dcl.fct.def.general

Link to reflector thread (if any): N/A

Issue description:
https://wg21.link/dcl.fct.def.general#1 explains that various actions performed by constructors without syntactically being present are considered part of the body of the constructor. No similar statement is made with respect to destructors.

Suggested resolution:
Any informal reference to the body of a function should be interpreted as a reference to the non-terminal function-body, including, for. For a constructor this includes, default member initializers or default initialization used to initialize a base or member subobject in the absence of a mem-initializer-id ([class.base.init]). Similarly, for a destructor, this includes any calling of destructors of members and bases by the destructor ([class.dtor]).

[ddvamp]

In my opinion, it is more about location than about actions, i.e. that default member initializers are in the context of function-body, for example, for the purposes of the paragraph below about using incomplete types, or for the purposes of the inlining

[hubert-reinterpretcast]

In my opinion, it is more about location than about actions, i.e. that default member initializers are in the context of function-body, for example, for the purposes of the paragraph below about using incomplete types, or for the purposes of the inlining

If it made sense for "default initialization" (maybe for access checking or point of instantiation), then it makes sense for the destruction.

[jensmaurer]

CWG2993