Re: delete
From: Jerry Coffin (jcoffin_at_taeus.us)
Date: 06/02/04
- Next message: George Hester: "How do I determine the Class name of an OLE Object?"
- Previous message: Jerry Coffin: "Re: C run-time library"
- In reply to: Doug Harrison [MVP]: "Re: delete"
- Next in thread: Doug Harrison [MVP]: "Re: delete"
- Reply: Doug Harrison [MVP]: "Re: delete"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2004 20:18:52 -0600
In article <49bpb017ab7tqer3461r0je2a4sr5inp7f@4ax.com>, dsh@mvps.org
says...
[ ... ]
> Even VC6 (circa 1998) rejects that approach. In addition, you clipped the
> part where I went on to explain that even if you used an old compiler that
> allowed the overloading of operator delete on void*&, you'd still run into
> ambiguities when you tried to use it:
That's because it's irrelevant -- do you honestly think that a
compiler so defective as to allow it in the first place is likely to
enforce the other rules perfectly?
[ ... ]
> So there are multiple reasons why it doesn't work, and even if it did work
> under some ancient compiler, imagine the effects of moving to a newer one.
> Not only is your code immediately broken, you labored all that time with the
> wrong understanding of the delete operator, or at best, you came to rely on
> a crutch, which in the world of VC++, hasn't had a leg to stand on in at
> least six years. Earlier, you did characterize it as a "poor idea", and I
> elaborated on why it's an exceedingly poor idea, but in your reply, you seem
> to have backed away from that.
Please be so kind as to point out where I've said anything to the
effect that this is a good idea, or anything like it.
The fact is, I haven't backed away from anything! I said it was a
bad idea, and I've said _nothing_ to contradict that at all. I don't
see any particular requirement to re-state what I thought I'd already
made obvious, but apparently your memory is as bad as your logic, so
I'll reiterate.
The standard doesn't allow this. Chances are that your compiler
won't allow it either. If your compiler is so defective that it does
allow it, you should definitely get a better compiler immediately.
If you do insist on continuing to use such a piece of garbage, making
use of this particular defect is a bad idea anyway.
If you think that's too weakly stated, tough.
--
Later,
Jerry.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
- Next message: George Hester: "How do I determine the Class name of an OLE Object?"
- Previous message: Jerry Coffin: "Re: C run-time library"
- In reply to: Doug Harrison [MVP]: "Re: delete"
- Next in thread: Doug Harrison [MVP]: "Re: delete"
- Reply: Doug Harrison [MVP]: "Re: delete"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
