Lionello Lunesu wrote:
My point was that realloc() is wrong, not free(). The sorely missing
allocation primitive is expand(), and we've been paying for it through
the nose for decades.
Andrei
What would expand's signature be? It needs the current pointer, it needs
the new size. Seems that it's nothing else than a renamed realloc.
realloc moves memory, expand wouldn't. That delivered a fatal blow to
C++ making its allocation primitives inferior to C's.
The problem is just that realloc allows null-pointer (=malloc) and
0-size (=free), thereby making malloc/free obsolete.
That's the least of its problems.
Andrei
