Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!dptg!ulysses!andante!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Change to delete is in order
Message-ID: <10585@alice.UUCP>
Date: 17 Mar 90 05:30:03 GMT
References: <5136@odin.SGI.COM>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner NJ
Lines: 20

In article <5136@odin.SGI.COM>, shap@delrey.sgi.com (Jonathan Shapiro) writes:

> I believe that a small change to the definition of the delete operator
> is worth considering.  The change would have no effect on correct
> programs, but would help find incorrect programs in some circumstances.

> 	delete should be defined to zero the pointer it is handed
> 	after freeing the associated store.

But the pointer might not be an lvalue!

In any event, if you look at the latest C++ reference manual,
you will find that the implementation is permitted (but not obliged)
to zero the pointer that is the subject of `delete.'

It is not obliged to do so in case some people don't want to
live with the small amount of additional overhead implied.
-- 
				--Andrew Koenig
				  ark@europa.att.com