🚀 go-pugleaf

Pete Becker (pete@borland.com) wrote:
: In article <41kici$p4t@deyke3.fc.hp.com>, rainer@deyke3.fc.hp.com says...
: >: TApplication* MyApp;
: >: MyApp = new TApplication("My Application");
: >
: >: without new and delete?
: >
: >Why bother with doing both at the same time?
: >
: >MyApp = (TApplication *)malloc(sizeof(TApplication));
: >create_TApplication(MyApp, "My Application");

: The difference is in the gap between the two lines, where you have something 
: that claims to be a pointer to a TApplication object, but isn't. C++ makes it 
: very hard to perform operations on objects that have not been initialized. 
: Separating memory allocation from initalization makes it much easier to 
: accidentally do things like this, as we have all done at one time or another.

Real programmers don't "accidentally" forget to initialize objects.

: 	Or, to turn the question around the other way, why separate them?

Obviously when using an array where each object is initialized to a
different value.  Especially a resizable array.

--
+----------------------------------------------+
|    Rainer Deyke (rainer@mdddhd.fc.hp.com)    |
| "The Earth shall inherit the meek" - Carcass |
+----------------------------------------------+