Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!nuchat!moray!urchin!f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org!Roy.Browning
From: Roy.Browning@f506.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Roy Browning)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: lint++ -> really "AutoCodeReview" -- Ideas requested.
Message-ID: <5457.25845C8E@urchin.fidonet.org>
Date: 11 Dec 89 06:59:53 GMT
Sender: ufgate@urchin.fidonet.org (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:106/506 - Fulcrum's Edge, Spring TX
Lines: 25


 > ComIdent::~ComIdent()
 > {
 >   if ( string )
 >     delete[strlen(string)+1] string;
 > }

 > The fix --- delete the copy constructor and replace with an assignment
 > one.

Randolph:

        I have sucessfully used both a copy constructor and an overloading  
assignment operator in a test class.  However from my limited reading on C++ I  
believe your problem is your destructor.  From reading Lippman pages 240 & 241  
you are deleting an array of pointers stored in "string" where "[x]" is the  
number to "free()".  From the source code I've seen all "delete" does is to  
call "free()" and pass it a "char *".  Telling "delete" there are "[X]"  
pointers stored at location "string" should cause some VERY unusual problems  
if I'm correct.

                           I could use a lint myself,

                                 Roy Browning