From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Unchecked_Deallocation vs. delete
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 19:02:51 +0200
Date: 2007-05-09T19:02:46+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1hzydt9ej6az6$.12jl0su9budun.dlg@40tude.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1178728045.890171.6110@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com
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.
> 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.
The symmetry is apparent. Pointers can be constructed using two methods:
new T and X'Access. Further even if a pointer is constructed with new, it
can be subject of GC.
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-09 17:02 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 [this message]
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
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