🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <44irni$10e@segfault.monkeys.com>,
Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg@monkeys.com> wrote:
>
>In article <434me4$ov3@citadel.evolving.com>,
>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.
>
>Maybe the answer is that delete came before references... then again,
>maybe not.

My guess would be that in the event of multiple pointers to the same
block, zeroing one pointer doesn't really solve anything.  If the
pointer were zeroed, people might get the impression that they don't
have to keep track of what has been freed.

>Heck!  If you are going to ask about _that_ why not ask why member
>functions get a `this' _pointer_ rather than a `this' reference?
>The latter would clearly have been a far better choice.

Agreed. I'm tired of returning *this.
-- 
Tim Hollebeek      | Everything above is a true statement, for sufficiently
PChem Grad Student | false values of true.
Princeton Univ.    | C++ == OOP--
-------------------| tim@handel.princeton.edu  http://wagner.princeton.edu/~tim

[ 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. ]