Hi,
The destructor is automatically called when the
object in question is no longer needed. Such as
an object is created inside a function locally and
when the function returns the object gets killed with
the destructor executed. Hence we dont call the
destructor explicitly.
And in java I feel the garbage collection concept is
implemented quite strong and rarely do we use explicit
deallocation.
Cheers,
Suresh
Wipro-Nortel Networks
Bangalore
>
>
>Being spoiled by Java's garbage collector leads me to this quick
>question again concerning constructors in C++.
>
>If I allocate memory via "new" using a constructor
>
>i.e.
>
> class Foo
> {
> Foo()
> { word = new char[LENGTH + 1]; }
>
> ~Foo()
> { delete word; }
>
> ...
> }
>
>When I create an object of class Foo memory will be allocated for the
>char buffer "word". Now when the object is no longer needed must I
>make an explicit call to the destructor ~Foo() to destroy the object
>and subsequently call "delete", or, is the destructor somehow called
>automatically when the object is no longer needed,i.e. outside of
>it's scope?
>
>Even in Java there are times when it is up to you to destroy an object
>and/or free memory used for that object, depending on how the object
>is/was created and an method equivalent of a destructor is required...
>The garbage collector is not always adequate.
>
>Thanks...
>
>Sincerely,
>
>/John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>--
>email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Local mailserver <landreau.ruffe.edu> , remote <ns.computer.net>
>
>There is a great alternative to war, it's called Peace.
>
--
