-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday, March 17, 2011, pavel wrote:
Kenny wrote on Thursday, March 17, 2011 at 22:08:51:
Because it's a lie. "delete" should delete something, and not be overloaded to perform non-obvious, unrelated logic. A perfect example is how the proposed usage of "delete" confused Frank Mori Hess. Was it unreasonable for him to see "delete" and assume that it was actually deleting something?
i disagree with you in my view it perfectly fits
Ok, I think I'm following what you want delete to do now. You're thinking that "delete GenericPointerObject" for should have the same effect on the pointed-to object as destroying the GenericPointerObject when GenericPointerObject is not a "plain old pointer". That would only be sort- of consistent with ordinary usage of delete if you viewed "plain old pointers" as a type that implies unique ownership. I don't see "plain old pointers" as implying anything about ownership. It's the "delete" part of "delete p" that implies the object should be destroyed, not the fact that p is a plain old pointer. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk2CZCkACgkQ5vihyNWuA4WqrACgzJ9sTpTvNEjJZLIKZDf3+Jrr yboAn2P9nCPz3Y9da8txZm1wnj3sQXXI =ONQR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----