Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!udel!burdvax!ubbpc!wgh
From: wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Why redefine operator new if you do not have to?
Keywords: operator new allocation constructor novice
Message-ID: <749@ubbpc.UUCP>
Date: 17 Sep 90 22:22:39 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Unisys UNIX Portation Center, Blue Bell, PA
Lines: 44


 We have a problem here in the Philadelphia area. No, I do not
mean that Philadelphia's municipal bonds have a rating of 'B' :-{

 The president of a local software firm has taken it upon himself to make
public lectures about C++.  He bought Turbo C++ a few weeks ago and he
has not yet finished reading the Annotated C++ Reference Manual (!!).

 This gent is an accomplished C programmer, and I do not want to embarrass
him more than necessary, so I will refer to him as 'Joe' (not his name).

 Joe has been using an 'infinite precision' integer package as an example
in his talks.  He has presented a C version, and he is now discussing how
to implement the package as a C class called Number.

 He is doing OK except on the subject of constructors.  Joe has some weird
concept that a constructor should do type conversion, like
Number(int), but that a different technique is needed for storage allocation,
as in "allocate a 10-digit Number".  Joe thinks that a cool way to do
storage allocation for Number is to define his own Number::operator new().

 I explained that new() was already set up for class Number, and he does not
have to redefine it, and that redefining new() is for replacing the allocation
mechanism, and that Number(int x=0) is a good constructor and that it is
never necessary to allocate an empty Number in advance (the storage can
be allocated as needed).

 But Joe just doesn't get it.  How can I explain this to a beginner who thinks
he is an expert in C++ because he knows C real well and he has read half a book
on C++? 

 By the way, Joe has never heard of libg++ and he thinks that GNU software is
low quality hacker stuff.  His ego will not allow him to accept that the GNU
folks write better code than he ever did.

 I plan to print out your responses to this query and distribute them at the
next session of the computer association next month.

 Thank you for your support!
-- 
Bill Hutchison, DP Consultant	rutgers!cbmvax!burdvax!ubbpc!wgh (work)
Unisys UNIX Portation Center	uunet!eidolon!wgh (home)
P.O. Box 500, M.S. B121         "At the moment I feel more like arguing than
Blue Bell, PA 19424		being good" Raymond Smullyan _The Tao is Silent_