On 02/20/2015 12:30 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 2/20/15 1:05 PM, Nick Treleaven wrote:
>> It works correctly if I use destroy(*p), but the above code could
>> perhaps be statically rejected by object.destroy to help prevent bugs.
> I'm beginning to think this is the right thing to do. It confuses so
> many people, and setting a pointer/class reference/array to null is easy
> enough without needing a special function to do it. In other words, if
> you are using destroy, you aren't just trying to nullify a pointer. You
> want to destroy what the pointer represents.
>
> The only problem is, how does this affect existing code?
And templated containers...
Despite the issue, I favor the current behavior partly because I am used
to it from C++: A pointer going out of scope does not delete what it
points to. (It can't do that because the pointer does not know about the
object's ownership.)
Ali
