From -992097186878220613 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,a050958d123ab616 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Thread: 1149ec,a050958d123ab616 X-Google-Attributes: gid1149ec,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-07-08 11:12:52 PST Newsgroups: comp.std.c,comp.std.c++ Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!ames!news.larc.nasa.gov!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!sal.wisc.edu!alan From: alan@sal.wisc.edu (Alan Watson) Subject: Re: storage duration of malloced objects (was Re: reinterpret cast ...) Message-ID: <1994Jul8.162050.12302@sal.wisc.edu> Organization: Space Astronomy Lab, Madison WI References: <7JUL199421482411@lando.hns.com> Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 16:20:50 GMT Lines: 23 Xref: bga.com comp.std.c:1887 comp.std.c++:3197 In article clive@sco.com (Clive D.W. Feather) wrote: >6.1.2.4 *says* that there are >two lifetimes for objects, auto and static, and by implication that >there are none others. 6.1.2.4 does indeed enumerate only two storage durations -- `static' and `automatic'. However, it only defines the implications of those storage durations for objects with identifiers (in the first sentences of the second and third paragraphs). Heap objects have no identifiers, and so 6.1.2.4 leaves undefined their actual storage duration and the implications of that storage duration. 7.10.3 does not resolve the ambiguity of the name of the storage duration, but does resolve the semantics. [I will, of course, deny vigorously that I wrote any of the above.] -- Alan Watson | To be sure, there are certain penitential alan@oldp.astro.wisc.edu | exercises to be performed -- the Department of Astronomy | presentation of a paper, perhaps, and University of Wisconsin -- Madison | certainly listening to the papers of | others. -- David Lodge on conferences