At the level you're working at, you do not call destructors.

Normally people do not call the destructors. Since C++ is clearly pretty new to you, take the advice and do what everyone else does and don't call the destructors directly. Because if you do, you'll be back here in a week asking people to debug the weird crashes in your program and that road is going to be really hard work because suddenly you're in a place where very few people will be able to help you because everyone else doesn't call the destructors because they don't want to be in that place.

There is a reason people learning to juggle start with bean bags and not running chainsaws. It's less exciting, that's for sure. But it's also less exciting.

[quote name='Bregma' timestamp='1350671577' post='4991860']
I would argue Brother Bob's way is most efficient and clean, and has the most elegant and clean syntax. Then again, I'm used to reading C++.

Laerning how to use the standard library (std::remove_if(), std::vertex()) and the language features (lambdas, auto type deduction) is the boss fight that will unlock the next level.

The problem is this is a beginner's forum, and when you start putting lambda functions, using std::bind, functors, or any other somewhat advanced techniques, it's easy to get discouraged. As you said, you're used to looking at C++ (and, probably used to looking at C++11).

Do you really expect a beginner, who is just learning what a for loop does, to understand a lambda function?

So, IMO, this forum should stick to fundamentals and being obvious about how to conquer problems, and this would exclude any C++11.

The boss fight is for the experienced players, not someone who just picked up the joystick for the first time.
[/quote]
Fundamental does not equate simple. Everything in every language, literally, is just syntactic sugar on top of machine code that adds a levels of abstraction. The more of this sugar you exclude, the more of other things you have to learn instead. I don't think manually erasing elements is any more obvious than using functions that the standard library already provides.

I have already responded to an earlier poster that I agree that my solution as a whole may be too much for a beginner (and frankly, I only posted it because alvaro asked for it). But I also argued that, once you have accepted the solution in general, the C++11 features I included actually improves the simplicity of it.

Ignoring the C++11 features because they add complexity is wrong in my opinion. You can ignore my solution as a whole, but it would be outright stupid to remove the C++11 from it because that's going to turn it into a mess (or an even greater mess, if you like).

I'm not just learning about how to use for loops, lol. If you want to explain lambda functions to me, then I would gladly accept it.I've been meaning to anyway.
The reason I'm asking about this topic is that I'm making a game, and I want to make it as streamlined and advanced as I can with the tools given to me.
Most of the time when I ask questions here it has to do with conventions. Like, is it accepted by the general programming community to do this or that, etc. and this is one such question. But thank you all for the information once more.

You could make your own Delete() method, and that would set a boolean flag in the object (IsNull, for example) to true and delete any memory you may have allocated. Then, you could have a get() function (Or integrate this into the class with the boolean flag) to make sure you never tried to access members of the class that weren't there anymore.

That is entirely the wrong approach. If you delete an object and access it later, then the object shouldn't have been deleted in the first place because it was still in use. You have a lifetime management issue in that case and the proper way to handle that is to ensure that objects that are in use are never deleted, not to delete them arbitrarily and add a safety net just in case.

The way I handle it is a boolean that determines whether or not the object "exists". If it doesn't exist, I make its position far from anything that it could interact with, I disable its actions, and erase it from the board. Then once your character is out of the environment that has the enemy objects, they stay in a state of nonexistence until the next time they need to be initialized. So I would delete them right before I make more of them, and if the program ends, I delete them regardless.