delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | "Stephen Howe" <SPAMGUARDstephen DOT howe AT dial DOT pipex DOT co DOT uk> |
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Subject: | Re: *** OFF-TOPIC *** Re: ok, I have more info on problem at hand |
Date: | Sun, 3 Sep 2000 22:15:30 +0100 |
Organization: | UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom |
Lines: | 28 |
Message-ID: | <8ouf1h$ad3$1@soap.pipex.net> |
References: | <Mtg9LD_00Uw9QI9Fw3 AT andrew DOT cmu DOT edu> <smd2rskgoliuo3lpknet1pgf39ipfqdhtg AT 4ax DOT com> <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 21 DOT 0009021839050 DOT 7932-100000 AT plato DOT wadham DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk> <qdr2rssq4e4v10sl1ud4sj0ahdcnpk19u6 AT 4ax DOT com> <8otati$ei1$1 AT plato DOT wadham DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk> |
Reply-To: | "Stephen Howe" <SPAMGUARDstephen DOT howe AT dial DOT pipex DOT co DOT uk> |
NNTP-Posting-Host: | tns254.uk.tnsofres.com |
X-Trace: | soap.pipex.net 968015729 10659 194.202.213.254 (3 Sep 2000 21:15:29 GMT) |
X-Complaints-To: | abuse AT uk DOT uu DOT net |
NNTP-Posting-Date: | 3 Sep 2000 21:15:29 GMT |
X-Priority: | 3 |
X-MSMail-Priority: | Normal |
X-Newsreader: | Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 |
X-MimeOLE: | Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 |
Path: | news.mv.net!newspeer.phoen-x.net!diablo.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!news.tele.dk!158.43.192.22!join.news.pipex.net!pipex!grot.news.pipex.net!pipex!tube.news.pipex.net!pipex!not-for-mail |
Xref: | news.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:103145 |
J-P <jstacey AT plato DOT wadham DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk> wrote in message news:8otati$ei1$1 AT plato DOT wadham DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk... > 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(). Then you are to going to have nearly everyone in the C++ community disagreeing with you. The reason you cannot do int *p; p = malloc(10); in C++ is that it casually breaks the type system (void pointer being assigned to another pointer). Of course it is ok in C because it has weaker type checking. This was considered a dangerous hole and so it was removed. You can find that in "The Design and Evolution of C++ by Stroustrup". Of course p = (int *)malloc(10); is fine in C++. Stephen Howe
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |