🚀 go-pugleaf

In article 95Sep1110410@physics12.Berkeley.EDU, tblancha@evolving.com (Todd Blanchard) writes:
>This is common in C:
>
>#define free(X) { free(X); X=0; }
>
>You could do something similar in C++ as:
>
>void operator delete (void*& p, size_t s)
>{
>   ::delete p;
>   p = 0;
>}
>
>but the standard definition is:
>void operator delete(void* p, size_t);
>
>Why is that?

1. The argument to operator delete need not be an lvalue:
	T* foo();
	...
	delete foo();

2.  Believing that this approach solves the dangling pointer problem even
in C, is naive, and leads to a false sense of security. The program might
have any number of copies of the pointer which was deleted, and the copies
would still dangle. You have to use a design discipline that keeps track of
who owns the heap object and under what circumstances it is to be deleted.

---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]