Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/09/03/08:00:05
In article <qdr2rssq4e4v10sl1ud4sj0ahdcnpk19u6 AT 4ax DOT com>,
Jason Green <mail AT jgreen4 DOT fsnet DOT co DOT uk> wrote:
>> Do you mean the standard classes? Because I'm sure even Bjarne Stroustrup
>> (sp?) has said otherwise in some tome, but I could be wrong.
>
>"Using resize() on a vector is very similar to using the C standard
>library function realloc() on a C array allocated on the free store."
Sorry: yes. What I wrote was the exact opposite of what I meant, due to
multiple rewrites before sending. I meant that /only/ in the standard
classes was there a realloc() equivalent.
>The C++ standard, as far as possible, is backward compatible with
>conforming C code. However, there were a few things the C++ standard
>committee felt were more important then backward compatibilty, and
>implicit conversion of void pointers was one of them.
I think we're going to end up violently agreeing with each other here,
especially as implicit pointer conversion (bad due to polymorphism) hasn't
got much to do with realloc().
J-P
- Raw text -