Re: Unchecked_Deallocation subtleties

[Nick Roberts <nickroberts@blueyonder.co.uk>]

On Wed, 9 Apr 2003 16:23:36 -0500, Randy Brukardt <randy@rrsoftware.com> 
wrote:

> ...
>
> The implementation is clearly wrong.
>
> The only place that the standard ever talks about calling the storage
> pool Deallocate is in 13.11.2(9). That paragraph starts with "Free(X),
> when X is not already equal to null...". So, there is no justification
> for calling Deallocate, or Finalize, or doing anything when X is not
> null.
>
> "no effect" here means just that -- no effect: nothing is called,
> executed, etc. I do agree that that term is not formally defined, so
> there is a bit of wiggle room for implementations, but calling arbitrary
> routines because its convinient seems to be beyond any wiggle room.
> Especially as it is easy to do it correctly.
>
> That said, unless you can get a patch from a vendor (and that usually
> means that you're a favored customer), you probably ought to work around
> it - it does not seem hard to do so.

I'm sorry to vacillate, but I must add here that I completely /agree/ with 
Randy; I now disagree with my own previous post!

I agree that the implementation is /wrong/ to call Deallocate when the 
object is already null. (I was thinking about something a bit different 
when writing my previous post.) To do otherwise not only goes against what 
the RM says, but it also goes against good sense.

Apologies for any confusion!

-- 
Nick Roberts
Jabber: debater@charente.de [ICQ: 159718630]