🚀 go-pugleaf

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?
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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."

stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com (Steve Clamage) writes:
> In article lvf@citadel.evolving.com, tblancha@evolving.com (Todd Blanchard) writes:
> >
> >Designers could try telling the truth once in awhile and say something like:
> >"Nobody thought of it early enough and its too late to change now."
> >Which I suspect is more likely.
> 
> Except in this case, the approach had been discussed years ago and rejected
> as not a good idea. See D&E, for example.
> 
> I recommend that you do a minimum of research before accusing others
> of laziness and mendacity.
> 
> ---
> Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com


I think the original question may have been slightly confusing.
It showed
     void operator delete (void*& p, size_t s)
I think it was intended to be
     void operator delete (void*& p)
In D&E I found an answer to why the 2nd argument to delete is illegal.

What is the answer to the question:
     why the 1st (only) argument must be void* and can't be void*&?
From the original posting, the intention seems clear to allow the
delete operator to assign 0 to the pointer passed as the
argument (i.e. the pointer must be passed by reference, not by value).

I did a minimum of research - but didn't find an answer in D&E.
(And I've lost my ARM!)
Could someone point me to the exact page in D&E (or ARM or anywhere)
or post a rationale?

Thanks.

Don Organ


[ 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. ]