Date: Thu, 27 May 1999 15:04:40 -0500 (EST) From: Kenneth Chiu <chiuk@cs.indiana.edu> To: "G. Adam Stanislav" <adam@whizkidtech.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: c9x (new ANSI C) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9905271431430.475-100000@bakery.chiu.nom> In-Reply-To: <19990519180151.A226@whizkidtech.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 19 May 1999, G. Adam Stanislav wrote: > It should be the constructor that allocates the memory; the > destructor that frees it. That way you could rely on having exactly the > amount of memory needed for each class no matter what version of the class > library you use. Allowing the constructor to allocate the memory would certainly be an idea to consider if you were designing a new language, but it would have a lot of ramifications. You would essentially have to add a layer of indirection throughout the language. It would be hard to consider it an extension of C, as originally intended. I actually would have preferred that they just designed a completely new language, but in that case, it probably would not have become popular. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9905271431430.475-100000>