Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!lupine!rfg
From: rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: delete []
Keywords: delete class []
Message-ID: <985@lupine.NCD.COM>
Date: 28 Jul 90 18:50:04 GMT
References: <641@atcmpe.atcmp.nl>
Reply-To: rfg@ncd.com
Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc., Mt. View, CA
Lines: 48

In article <641@atcmpe.atcmp.nl> leo@atcmp.nl (Leo  Willems) writes:
>When shifting from 2.0 to 2.1 I found myself in problems with:
>
>func(){
>	classtype *m = new classtype[10];
>
>	delete[10] m;
>}
>
>In 2.0 this works fine, in 2.1 not, that compilers suggests:
>
>	delete [] m;
>
>which indeed works correct. (but not in 2.0, which accepts the code but
>generates a .c file with a syntax error)
>
>Is delete[] indeed the correct way ?

This is a relative recent change in the definition of the language, and in the
cfront implementation of the language.  Thus, it is not surprizing that it
has thrown some people for a loop.

The new Annotated C++ Reference Manual (E&S) clearly indicates that the
proper way to delete an array of things which are pointed to by some pointer
`p' is to say:

		delete [] p;

In the old days (e.g. when using 2.0 and earlier) you needed to write the
actual number of elements inside the [], but that's not needed anymore,
nor will it be in the future.

>Should delete[] be accepted by 2.0 or is it new to 2.1?

This is new in 2.1.  You will not be able to use this simpler notation/syntax
if you are still working with cfront 2.0 (or earlier).

P.S.  For anybody out there who is doing serious work with C++ and who has
not yet obtained a copy of the new Annotated C++ Reference Manual, I have
only two words for you.  Get it.

'nuff said.

-- 
// Ron Guilmette
// C++ Entomologist
// Internet: rfg@ncd.com      uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
// Motto:  If it sticks, force it.  If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.