Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!jarthur!uci-ics!rfg
From: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Change to delete is in order
Message-ID: <25FC0210.26173@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Date: 12 Mar 90 20:09:53 GMT
References: <5136@odin.SGI.COM>
Reply-To: rfg@ics.uci.edu (Ronald Guilmette)
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Lines: 15

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.

That would be a swell idea, except that I don't believe that the value
in a delete statement is required to be an lvalue.  What should the compiler
do if the value is *not* an lvalue?  Punt?

// Ron Guilmette (rfg@ics.uci.edu)
// C++ Entomologist
// Motto:  If it sticks, force it.  If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.