Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!codas!usfvax2!ateng!chip
From: chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: constructors and instantiation
Message-ID: <51@ateng.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Oct-87 10:40:27 EST
Article-I.D.: ateng.51
Posted: Tue Oct 20 10:40:27 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Oct-87 01:00:35 EST
References: <2575@sigi.Colorado.EDU>
Reply-To: chip@ateng.UUCP (Chip Salzenberg)
Distribution: na
Organization: A.T. Engineering, Tampa, FL
Lines: 34

In article <2575@sigi.Colorado.EDU> chase@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Chase Turner) writes:
>b) I want to instantiate objects in shared memory which is accessable to 
>seperate processes

No problem.

>c)  why is the value of *this* not updated in the main body to reflect the
>assignment of the object to the malloc space I created?

Because the value of "this" is only modifiable for dynamically allocated
objects.  The "new" operator automatically invokes the appropriate
constructor, so given the constructor you posted, you're in like a porch
climber.  (Except for the first assignment to val, which is a nono.)

>main()
>{
>                stamp   ts (10);
>                ts.print_myself ();
>}

This should be

main()
{
	stamp *ts = new stamp(10);
	ts->print_myself();
	delete ts;
}

-- 
Chip Salzenberg         "chip@ateng.UUCP"  or  "{uunet,usfvax2}!ateng!chip"
A.T. Engineering        My employer's opinions are not mine, but these are.
   "Gentlemen, your work today has been outstanding.  I intend to recommend
   you all for promotion -- in whatever fleet we end up serving."   - JTK