From 4038379733302990524 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,a10702d4a7db0a94 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!207.14.113.39!news.alt.net!comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail From: "jam" Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Why no size_t to ::operator delete? Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 10:42:11 CST Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 43 Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ Message-ID: <1166972000.681908.252480@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <12omt8jit7rl379@corp.supernews.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1166972006 26513 127.0.0.1 (24 Dec 2006 14:53:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 14:53:26 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.csse.unimelb.edu.au: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-Original-To: std-c++@mailman.ucar.edu Delivered-To: std-c++@mailman.ucar.edu User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; Media Center PC 3.0; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 CacheBox-GWNET:3128 (squid/2.5.STABLE9) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=217.218.183.3; posting-account=fxvlCQ0AAACpMobOE10E8MvmXCmQLWsz X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at csse.unimelb.edu.au X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at csse.unimelb.edu.au Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.std.c++:5153 On Dec 24, 4:28 am, a...@acm.org ("Andrew Koenig") wrote: > "Scott Meyers" wrote in messagenews:12omt8jit7rl379@corp.supernews.com... > > > I'm sure I used to know this once upon a time, but why doesn't the global > > operator delete take a size_t argument specifying the size of the memory > > chunk being freed?Because if it did, what would it mean? > > 1) If it means "Free just this much memory and leave the rest unallocated", > then it becomes impossible to implement new/delete in terms of malloc/free. > > 2) If it can be ignored, which would appear to be necessary to use > malloc/free for allocation, then what's the point? > > Many moons ago I tried to convince the C++ community that there would be > much to gain from abandoning malloc/free, but I could never find anyone > willing even to consider it seriously. > > --- > [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] > [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-...@ncar.ucar.edu ] > [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] > [ FAQ:http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ] I am an amatuer programmer who started from C.I am convinced now that C++`s dynamic memory management mechanism can be much better than what it is .I have got good ideas I do not know where to submit.It envolves minamal backward compatible syntax corrections already implemented on some platforms.I beleive that the couple keywords "new/delete" can be decreased to one keyword ;in my suggestion a keyword for deleting is unnecessary(this does not mean that dealocation will not take place).I appreciate any advise. regards F Mehrabi --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]