🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.std.c++
Article #1890

Why not op delete(void* v&,size_t);?

#1890
From: Todd Blanchard
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 1995 18:04
28 lines
1305 bytes
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?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Blanchard                                    tblancha@evolving.com
Evolving Systems Inc.                               VOX: (303) 689-1798
                                                    FAX: (303) 689-1399
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

---
[ 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. ]
Technical Details
Message-ID: <MATT.95Sep1110410@physics12.Berkeley.EDU>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!128.32.155.1!matt

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!128.32.155.1!matt
From: tblancha@evolving.com (Todd Blanchard)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Why not op delete(void* v&,size_t);?
Date: 01 Sep 1995 18:04:10 GMT
Organization: Evolving Systems, Inc.
Approved: matt@physics12.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern)
Message-ID: <MATT.95Sep1110410@physics12.Berkeley.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics12.berkeley.edu