🚀 go-pugleaf

 
>>>>> On 01 Oct 1995 05:39:01 GMT, vandevod@cs.rpi.edu (David
Vandevoorde) said:
 
>>>>> "RG" == Ronald F Guilmette <rfg@monkeys.com> writes:
    RG> In article <434me4$ov3@citadel.evolving.com>, Todd Blanchard
    RG> <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
    RG> again, maybe not.

    David> Wouldn't this cause problems when attempting to delete
    David> const pointers?

    David> 	X* const xp = new X; // ...  delete xp; // Or is this
    David> illegal anyway? I suspect not.

I don't understand how "delete xp" would be true. Because delete takes
a void * and how can a X* const be converted to void* const? Is that a
standard conversion by any chance? I'd be surprised if it is. 

In any case, none of the compilers that I use now complain. 

Cheers,
Anil
---
[ 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. ]