🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4k3q4p$lkd@syn.cs.cornell.edu>,
vavasis@CS.Cornell.EDU (Stephen Vavasis) wrote:

|> The troubling thing about this trap is that none of the unix
|> compilers I tried (gcc-2.7.2, Sun SC3.0.1, HP-UX cfront 3.0.3) issued
|> a warning about the mistake, even on the highest warning level.  Only
|> Visual C++4.0 observed that there might be a problem.  Here is an
|> example of the trap. 
...
|>   char* a = new char(sz + 1); // bug is here, but syntax is legal.

Perhaps you should try one of the C++ lints? There are many, many areas
where the (draft) standard allows constructs of dubious value but the
committee have always been careful not to remove a construct solely on the
grounds that programmers might shoot themselves in the foot.

Sean A Corfield
Object Consultancy Services
C++ - Beyond the ARM - http://nw.demon.co.uk/ocsltd/c++/
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  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                             ]