Re: placement new , is this acceptable?
From: lallous (lallous_at_lgwm.org)
Date: 02/11/04
- Next message: John Harrison: "Re: Can statements be written outside function body?"
- Previous message: Keith MacDonald: "Re: Defeated by basic_istringstream"
- In reply to: Claudio Puviani: "Re: placement new , is this acceptable?"
- Next in thread: Claudio Puviani: "Re: placement new , is this acceptable?"
- Reply: Claudio Puviani: "Re: placement new , is this acceptable?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:02:23 +0200
"Claudio Puviani" <puviani@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZAaWb.4774$rv1.3102017@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> "lallous" <lallous@lgwm.org> wrote
> > "Claudio Puviani" <puviani@hotmail.com> wrote
> > >
> > > Aside from the fact that this is an overly convoluted way to do
things,
> > > [...]
> >
> > My question is whether the method used to create/destroy an instance is
> > acceptable?
>
> What part of "overly convoluted" doesn't answer your question? I suppose
one
> could get philosophical and ask "acceptable by who's standard?", but in
Is the usage of placement new and calling the destructor like that a correct
one C++ syntax wise?
I heard there is "overhead" or extra bytes that needs to be allocated in
addition to the size of the class?
[snip ...book recomendation...]
-- Elias
- Next message: John Harrison: "Re: Can statements be written outside function body?"
- Previous message: Keith MacDonald: "Re: Defeated by basic_istringstream"
- In reply to: Claudio Puviani: "Re: placement new , is this acceptable?"
- Next in thread: Claudio Puviani: "Re: placement new , is this acceptable?"
- Reply: Claudio Puviani: "Re: placement new , is this acceptable?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
