From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,d067a5a7c60c3b40,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Maciej Sobczak Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Unchecked_Deallocation vs. delete Date: 9 May 2007 09:27:25 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1178728045.890171.6110@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.233.239.129 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1178728046 26542 127.0.0.1 (9 May 2007 16:27:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:27:26 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.3) Gecko/20070309 Firefox/2.0.0.3,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com; posting-host=62.233.239.129; posting-account=Ch8E9Q0AAAA7lJxCsphg7hBNIsMsP4AE Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15680 Date: 2007-05-09T09:27:25-07:00 List-Id: What's the benefit of Unchecked_Deallocation as a generic library procedure vs. built-in deallocation operator like delete in C++? The disadvantage, as far as I perceive it, is that it breaks the symmetry that should be expected with regard to the allocation operation. If "new" is built-in, then the deallocation should be built- in as well. Making it a generic library procedure just makes more work for the programmers for no clear reason. What clear reason am I missing? -- Maciej Sobczak http://www.msobczak.com/