> It's non-POD.
For a stricter definition of POD which requires that byte-by-byte copies are possible. More informally, it's a POD because it only defines members and all the constructors and destructors are implicitly generated.
For a stricter definition of POD which requires that byte-by-byte copies are possible. More informally, it's a POD because it only defines members and all the constructors and destructors are implicitly generated.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to not have this recursive quality to POD-ness, because the fact that C++ shenanigans are involved doesn't go away just because it's implicitly handled for you by the compiler.
EDIT: It seems I've had a slightly incorrect impression of "POD": what makes 'Person' non-POD isn't that it has an implicitly defined constructor but simply that it contains a non-POD type. The requirements for POD classes[1] includes "has no non-static data members of type non-POD class (or array of such types)". std::string is certainly a non-POD class, which makes discussion about Person's constructors and destructors moot. Not that it changes anything, but I don't wanna spread misinformation.
[1] https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/classes#POD_class