🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

I imagine that the real reason is that this would require an lvalue as
parameter for delete, and in general, this is *not* the case.  (Note
that the result of casting T* to a void* is *not* an lvalue.)

I'd be curious in hearing how to implement this proposal on machines
where void* does not have the same representation as T* (where T is a
class).
-- 
James Kanze           (+33) 88 14 49 00          email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs Bourgeois, 67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils en informatique industrielle--
                             --Beratung in industrieller Datenverarbeitung

---
[ 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. ]