Re: use delete to destroy primitive/object types but memory is not freed
From: Eric Sosman (Eric.Sosman_at_sun.com)
Date: 04/07/04
- Next message: Martin Ambuhl: "Re: alternative to rand()"
- Previous message: Arthur J. O'Dwyer: "Re: main function address"
- In reply to: jimjim: "use delete to destroy primitive/object types but memory is not freed"
- Next in thread: jimjim: "Re: use delete to destroy primitive/object types but memory is not freed"
- Reply: jimjim: "Re: use delete to destroy primitive/object types but memory is not freed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 15:53:54 -0400
jimjim wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> This is a simple question for you all, I guess .
> int main(){
> double *g= new double;
> [...]
Stop right there: The question just becaue non-simple
for us-all here in comp.lang.c. Perhaps it would be simple
for them-all over thar in comp.lang.c++. Tread carefully
as you cross the demilitarized zone.
-- Eric.Sosman@sun.com
- Next message: Martin Ambuhl: "Re: alternative to rand()"
- Previous message: Arthur J. O'Dwyer: "Re: main function address"
- In reply to: jimjim: "use delete to destroy primitive/object types but memory is not freed"
- Next in thread: jimjim: "Re: use delete to destroy primitive/object types but memory is not freed"
- Reply: jimjim: "Re: use delete to destroy primitive/object types but memory is not freed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
