Easy Rep: Noob beginner C++ operator overloads and destructors
    struct Node
    {
    int value
    Node* next;
    }
    typedef List Node*
    
    const Set operator +(const Set& a, const Set& b)
    {
    	Set aSet;
    	List newList = mergeListsCopy(a.list, b.list);
    	aSet.list = newList;
    	return aSet;
    }
    
    class Set
    {
    public:
    //method decs
    private:
    	List list;
    };
    
    Set::~Set()
    {
    	list = deleteList(list);	
    }

The internals of this code work perfectly fine, mergeListsCopy creates a new list from two singly linked lists and assignes the pointer to the list which is a private variable of aSet.  

The problem is when aSet is returned, aSet.list is some strange poison address( in this case 0xf).  

When I ran it through the debugger a Set was created in the scope of the operator overload and but two references to this set were also created locally both using the symbol aSet, before the return occurred, the program jumped to the destructor, presumably for the extraneous Set, but since there is only one Set it gets destroyed.
 
When I comment out my destructor this problem goes away.  What did I do wrong?
Easy Rep: Noob beginner C++ operator overloads and destructors
===

    struct Node
    {
    int value
    Node* next;
    }
    typedef List Node*
    
    const Set operator +(const Set& a, const Set& b)
    {
    	Set aSet;
    	List newList = mergeListsCopy(a.list, b.list);
    	aSet.list = newList;
    	return aSet;
    }
    
    class Set
    {
    public:
    //method decs
    private:
    	List list;
    };
    
    Set::~Set()
    {
    	list = deleteList(list);	
    }

The internals of this code work perfectly fine, mergeListsCopy creates a new list from two singly linked lists and assignes the pointer to the list which is a private variable of aSet.  

The problem is when aSet is returned, aSet.list is some strange poison address( in this case 0xf).  

When I ran it through the debugger a Set was created in the scope of the operator overload and but two references to this set were also created locally both using the symbol aSet, before the return occurred, the program jumped to the destructor, presumably for the extraneous Set, but since there is only one Set it gets destroyed.
 
When I comment out my destructor this problem goes away.  What did I do wrong?