Re: Unchecked_Deallocation vs. delete

[Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>]

"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.
[...]

Yes.  Allocation is safe; it either succeeds or fails cleanly.
Deallocation, if you happen to deallocate the wrong thing, can fail in
arbitrarily bad ways.  Requiring you to instantiate
Unchecked_Deallocation (emphasis on "Unchecked") is intended as a
reminder that it's entirely up to *you* to get it right; if you mess
up the argument, the implementation isn't going to save you.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center             <*>  <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"