On Aug 15, 1:26 pm, "Jim Langston" <tazmas...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> "James Kanze" <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1187093254.563437.306220@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 13, 5:47 pm, "Jim Langston" <tazmas...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Premal" <premalpanc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1187001196.332686.142080@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Aug 13, 3:24 pm, "Jim Langston" <tazmas...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
> > >> "Premal" <premalpanc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:1186998665.724715.167860@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > >> > I tried to make delete operator private for my class. Strangely it is
> > >> > giving me error if I compile that code in VC++.NET. But it compiles
> > >> > successfully on VC++6.o. Can anybody give me inputs about it. I
> > >> > wanted
> > >> > that on my class delete should not work. Object pointer should be
> > >> > deleted using my function only which is taking care of reference
> > >> > count
> > >> > for particular class.
> > >> > Thanx in advance for your inputs.
> > >> Please show what you tried that didn't work.
> > > I tried following one:
> > > class RefCountImpl
> > > {
> > > private:
> > > //data members
> > > protected:
> > > void operator delete(void*);
> > > public:
> > > //methods
> > > };
> > > if i have above class implementation.Then in VC++6.0 it works. You can
> > > allocate memory using new but you cannot delete that pointer in your
> > > clilent code. You have to use some method provided by above class to
> > > release the pointer.
> > > Same thing doesnt work in VC++.NET. It clearly throws error that
> > > making delete private cause memory leakage. May be VC++.NET compiler
> > > become more stirct about this. :(.....
> > > I hope you got my point. I hope you can give me some valuable input.
> > #include <iostream>
> > class RefCountImpl
> > {
> > private:
> > //data members
> > protected:
> > void operator delete(void*) { ::delete this };
> > public:
> > void Kill() { delete this; }
> > //methods};
> > };
> > int main()
> > {
> > RefCountImpl Foo;
> > RefCountImpl* Bar = new RefCountImpl;
>
> The above line shouldn't work.
>
> The original standard wasn't 100% clear about this; if the
> constructor of RefCountImpl terminates with an exception, then
> the code here must call delete, but in this case, the compiler
> can easily determine that it cannot terminate with an exception.
> Some compilers used this information to avoid requiring that
> operator delete was accessible, and others didn't. (And some
> older compilers, like I think VC++ 6.0, didn't even bother with
> the delete -- a constructor terminates with an exception, and
> you leak memory.) I believe in fact that there was a defect
> report concerning this. At any rate, the current draft
> explicitly says that delete must be accessible here, even if the
> compiler can determine that the constructor can't possibly
> throw. (It's a logical choice, because otherwise, how much
> analysis should the compiler do to determine whether the
> constructor can throw or not.)
>
> =====
>
> Well, it compiled in Microsoft VC++ .net 2003. Perhaps it won't compile in
> 2005.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes Jim,
May by you are right. It is not getting compiled. But interesting
thing is in VC++6.0 if you make delete operator protected and just
throw exception in constructor. And in your client code under try
catch block make the array of RefImplCount. In this case if you have
thrown exception after making two objects in array then it is calling
delete and hence the destructor of the class. So its very surprising
that why it is now restricted in VC++.NET 2005.

I hope you are getting my point.I will check version of .NET at my
place also.I am not able to find your email address. If you can
provide it then I will send my code to you so may be you can give
better suggestion.

I really appreciated response you have given. Thanx a lot for this.

Regards,
Premal Panchal