Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!stl!stc!root44!hrc63!pj
From: pj@hrc63.co.uk (Mr P Johnson "Baddow")
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Constructors and new
Message-ID: <625@hrc63.co.uk>
Date: 26 Jun 89 14:40:36 GMT
References: <2684@ssc-vax.UUCP> <43984c6e.1ad5a@apollo.COM>
Organization: GEC Hirst Research Centre, Wembley, England.
Lines: 19

In article <43984c6e.1ad5a@apollo.COM>, vasta@apollo.COM (John Vasta) writes:
> 
> Checking the value of 'this' only makes sense if you want to assign to it.
> The statement from The Book is in the section about taking over the storage
> allocation mechanism; the first sentence in 5.5.7 is
> 
> "When assigning to this in a constructor, the value of this is undefined
> until that assignment."

Thats in The Book, but Stroustrup has written "The Evolution of C++" which
describes member operator functions for new and delete which do this sort of
think much more neatly.

At least one compiler (Oregon) now does it this way.
-- 
Paul Johnson,         | `The moving finger writes, And having writ, moves on,'
GEC-Marconi Research  |                    Omar Kyham when contemplating `vi'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The company has put a radio inside my head: it controls everything I say!