From: Markus E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>
Subject: Re: Unchecked_Deallocation vs. delete
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 23:10:57 +0200
Date: 2007-05-10T23:10:57+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1dbqgs2xlq.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1hzydt9ej6az6$.12jl0su9budun.dlg@40tude.net
"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> On 9 May 2007 09:27:25 -0700, Maciej Sobczak wrote:
>
>> What's the benefit of Unchecked_Deallocation as a generic library
>> procedure vs. built-in deallocation operator like delete in C++?
>
> To make it harder to use.
My theory is, they did it on the express purpose to antagonize
you. Someone must have had the second sight and foreseen that you
don't like generics.
Regards -- Markus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-10 21:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-09 16:27 Unchecked_Deallocation vs. delete Maciej Sobczak
2007-05-09 17:02 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2007-05-09 20:56 ` Robert A Duff
2007-05-09 20:59 ` Keith Thompson
2007-05-10 20:09 ` Maciej Sobczak
2007-05-11 7:35 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2007-05-11 8:15 ` Maciej Sobczak
2007-05-11 16:39 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2007-05-16 19:25 ` Randy Brukardt
2007-05-10 21:10 ` Markus E Leypold [this message]
2007-05-09 17:51 ` Martin Krischik
2007-05-09 20:54 ` Robert A Duff
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox