Markus Werle wrote: > Hi! > > In one of Herb Sutters articles I saw that > after deleting a pointer (a pimpl) he assigns 0 afterwards > which seems to me like a good idea. > (see e.g. http://www.gotw.ca/gotw/028.htm or http://tinyurl.com/bq8o) > > Maybe there is a good reason (efficiency?) > why checked_delete omits this extra step. > Please explain. > > template<class T> inline void checked_delete(T * x) > { > typedef char type_must_be_complete[sizeof(T)]; > delete x; > // why not ? > x = 0; > } >
checked_delete only checks, it doesn't improve you code :) Seriously, the question can be redirected to C++98 level: why delete operator doesn't assign deleted pointer to 0? I'm sure it has already been discussed. You can search for the topic in comp.std.c++ and comp.lang.c++.moderated. -- Alexander Nasonov Remove minus and all between minus and at from my e-mail for timely response _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost