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
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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/