Length of C++ arrays allocated by operator new[]

[Noah Roberts]

The length of the allocated array must be stored somewhere
by new so that delete[] knows how many destructors to call.
But theres no standard way to get this length.

That is not completely correct. You can override the new operator to
use an allocator that will provide you with that information. This
would all indeed be quite within the standard. It is also, of course,
why there can never be a *generic* method of accessing this
information.

 

[Bo Persson]

The length of the allocated array must be stored somewhere
by new so that delete[] knows how many destructors to call.
But theres no standard way to get this length.

So the standard decided to provide std::vector instead of trying to
fix the broken C style arrays.


Bo Persson

 

[Gerald Breuer]

Am 28.08.2011 16:38, schrieb Bo Persson:

So the standard decided to provide std::vector instead of trying to
fix the broken C style arrays.

There's nothing broken with C style arrays.

 

[Bo Persson]

Am 28.08.2011 16:38, schrieb Bo Persson:


There's nothing broken with C style arrays.

Right, except that people try to determine their length?


Bo Persson

 

[Gerald Breuer]

Am 28.08.2011 22:44, schrieb Bo Persson:

Right, except that people try to determine their length?

A missing functionality doesn't make something broken.

 

[James Kanze]

Am 28.08.2011 16:38, schrieb Bo Persson:

There's nothing broken with C style arrays.

Except that they're not first class types. C uses value
semantics for objects (C++ too, by default). Except when the
object is an array, in which case, there is an implicit
conversion to an unrelated type (except when there isn't).