Article View: comp.std.c++
Article #2082Re: Why not op delete(void* v&,size_t);?
From: David Vandevoorde
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 1995 05:39
Date: Sun, 01 Oct 1995 05:39
26 lines
1376 bytes
1376 bytes
>>>>> "RG" == Ronald F Guilmette <rfg@monkeys.com> writes: RG> In article <434me4$ov3@citadel.evolving.com>, RG> Todd Blanchard <tblancha@evolving.com> wrote: >> void operator delete(void*,size_t); >> ... >> Nowhere can I find a rational explanation for why the pointer is not >> passed as a void*& (to allow zeroing). It would provide more >> flexibility in memory management schemes. RG> Maybe the answer is that delete came before references... then again, RG> maybe not. Wouldn't this cause problems when attempting to delete const pointers? X* const xp = new X; // ... delete xp; // Or is this illegal anyway? I suspect not. Daveed --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu. Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu. The moderation policy is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<VANDEVOD.95Oct1000751@avs.cs.rpi.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!agate!MattReferences:
<9509082051.AA01889@dawn.megaeng> <434me4$ov3@citadel.evolving.com> <44irni$10e@segfault.monkeys.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!agate!Matt From: vandevod@cs.rpi.edu (David Vandevoorde) Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Why not op delete(void* v&,size_t);? Date: 01 Oct 1995 05:39:01 GMT Organization: RPI Computer Science Approved: Matt@Austern Message-ID: <VANDEVOD.95Oct1000751@avs.cs.rpi.edu> References: <9509082051.AA01889@dawn.megaeng> <434me4$ov3@citadel.evolving.com> <44irni$10e@segfault.monkeys.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: austern.hip.berkeley.edu