rgonzal@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Ralph Gonzalez) (09/17/90)
Hi. I'm not much of an expert on C++ (I mostly use Think C 4.0, a similar but less detailed language), so perhaps the following suggestion doesn't make sense stylistically, but here goes: Often I want to dynamically allocate space in my constructor. If there's not enough memory to do so, it would be nice if the 'new' operator simply deleted the object for me and returned NULL. Anything I was able to allocate in the constructor should in this case be deallocated by the constructor before it ends. An alternative would be for 'new' to call the destructor before deleting the un-initializable object. This implies the constructor should return a boolean value, which is made use of by 'new'. What do you think? -Ralph
rfg@NCD.COM (Ron Guilmette) (09/21/90)
In article <Sep.17.11.06.04.1990.7553@elbereth.rutgers.edu> rgonzal@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Ralph Gonzalez) writes:
<
<Often I want to dynamically allocate space in my constructor. If
<there's not enough memory to do so, it would be nice if the 'new'
<operator simply deleted the object for me and returned NULL. Anything
<I was able to allocate in the constructor should in this case be
<deallocated by the constructor before it ends. An alternative would
<be for 'new' to call the destructor before deleting the
<un-initializable object.
<
<This implies the constructor should return a boolean value, which is
<made use of by 'new'.
<
<What do you think?
I think this looks like a job for... ta ta da... exceptions!
(applause)
:-) :-)
--
// Ron Guilmette - C++ Entomologist
// Internet: rfg@ncd.com uucp: ...uunet!lupine!rfg
// Motto: If it sticks, force it. If it breaks, it needed replacing anyway.