The realloc question: rationale?

Article View: comp.std.c++

Article #3351

#3351

From: Kerry Kimbrough
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 1996 05:39

18 lines
1357 bytes

I gather from a recent message here that ANSI C++ (still) does not
define the moral equivalent of realloc(). This has always seemed
regrettable to me. I also find the rationale expressed in the 
comp.lang.c++ FAQ to be completely unsatisfactory. Surely someone
from this group can tell me why this omission is either a good thing
or at least not a major obstacle for efficient implementation of 
extensible arrays.

Regards,
Kerry Kimbrough
kk@onr.com
---
[ To submit articles: try just posting with your news-reader.
                      If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html
  Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.
]

Technical Details

Message-ID: <4g903m$7g8@mari.onr.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!cs.mu.OZ.AU!bounce-back

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!cs.mu.OZ.AU!bounce-back
From: Kerry Kimbrough <kk@onr.com>
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: The realloc question: rationale?
Date: 20 Feb 96 05:39:48 GMT
Organization: Onramp Access, Inc. 512-322-9200
Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au
Message-ID: <4g903m$7g8@mari.onr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: munta.cs.mu.oz.au
X-Original-Date: 19 Feb 1996 04:59:34 GMT
X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++
 iQBFAgUBMSletuEDnX0m9pzZAQFFjwF9HY5XSLl6+NlM9ufy74WfLEs4l5bm37u6
 P/3kLx5npmPXni3XITAdOPH6jWdGSBdv
 =K3T3
Originator: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU