Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Reply-To:	<al DOT slater AT scluk DOT com>
From:	"Al Slater" <al DOT slater AT scluk DOT com>
To:	"'Samuel'" <samuel AT socal DOT rr DOT com>, <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	RE: new vs malloc, was BUG - Cygwin to GNU CC compatibility
Date:	Wed, 7 Aug 2002 15:03:02 +0100
Message-ID:	<000601c23e1b$256af1c0$458c0ca4@pavilion>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
In-Reply-To:	<006001c23e15$1c9d6e70$a352a518@samsystem>
Importance:	Normal
X-MDRemoteIP:	164.12.140.69
X-Return-Path:	al DOT slater AT scluk DOT com
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

[SNIP]
> 
> It sure surprises me that I was the only one that said 
> something about the
> innacuracy; if such a thing were to be said in the 
> comp.lang.c++ newsgroup
> then the remark would get more ridicule than I see people 
> getting in this
> list about anything. Again, if you simply leave off the 
> "multiple" (and Ross
> did not say "multiple") from what you said, your statement is highly
> inaccurate. Am I the only one in this list that knows this? 
> If so then it is
> good that I am correcting this error. This is not a "C++ API / data
> structure philosophy debate"; it is not a matter of 
> philosophy; it is a
> matter of fact. There have been more than one message 
> recently asking C++
> questions that were not relevant to CygWin. I have not seen 
> any messages
> saying that they were off-topic. So I do not appreciate being 
> told that I
> should not post a small correction to a huge inaccuracy. I 
> know that for
> sure the C++ experts in the comp.lang.c++ newsgroup often 
> emphasize that for
> every "new" there must be one (and only one) "delete" and for 
> every "new []"
> there must be one (and only one) "delete []", but that is 
> such a basic thing
> that I do not need experts to tell me that.
> 
> All C++ questions should be referred to a more appropriate 
> list, newsgroup
> or forum, since the advice they get in the CygWin list is dangerous.
[SNIP]

No one replied because it is OFF TOPIC for this list


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -