home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: news.magmacom.com!not-for-mail
- From: ezust@mag1.magmacom.com (Acme Instant Dehydrated Boulder Kit)
- Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
- Subject: Re: Is it OK to delete const *type pointers?
- Date: 4 Apr 1996 13:50:49 -0500
- Organization: Cloud-Zero, Canada
- Message-ID: <4k15m9$gf8@mag1.magmacom.com>
- References: <4jpq00$lhj@dub-news-svc-6.compuserve.com>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: mag1.magmacom.com
-
- In article <4jpq00$lhj@dub-news-svc-6.compuserve.com>,
- Philippe Verdy <100105.3120@compuserve.com> wrote:
- >jlilley@ix.netcom.com (John Lilley) s'Θcrit :
- >> In article <4jhjub$fpc@mag1.magmacom.com>, ezust@mag1.magmacom.com says...
-
- Thanks for all the follow-ups but nobody told me anything I didn't know
- already.
-
- deleting a pointer to a constant object is, IMHO, something which should not
- be allowed by the language. And it is also something which is not permitted
- by some compilers. I understand why the language might allow it, and I
- understand why it might not. I've tried it on compilers which allow it,
- and I have tried it on compilers which don't.
-
- What I want to know is, IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE DRAFT STANDARD that
- discusses this? If so, where should I go to find it? Is a compiler which
- actively prevents you from deleting a pointer to constant memory going
- against the draft standard, or is it consistent with the language spec?
-
- While people's opinions on this subject are interesting, I've already
- discussed it to death with co-workers. I just want to know why some
- compilers don't let you do it and others do.
-
-
- --
- Alan Ezust "Just because I work for the federal
- Ottawa, Canada government doesn't mean I'm an expert
- ezust@magmacom.com on cockroaches" -Special Agent Fox Mulder
- http://www2.magmacom.com/~ezust
-