Why doesn’t delete set the pointer to NULL?

by

Stroustrup himself answers. An excerpt:

C++ explicitly allows an
implementation of delete to zero out
an lvalue operand, and I had hoped
that implementations would do that,
but that idea doesn’t seem to have
become popular with implementers.

But the main issue he raises is that delete’s argument need not be an lvalue.

More Related Contents:

  1. Is delete[] equal to delete?
  2. delete vs delete[] operators in C++
  3. Is “delete this” allowed in C++?
  4. Is it safe to delete a NULL pointer?
  5. delete vs delete[] [duplicate]
  6. Does delete on a pointer to a subclass call the base class destructor?
  7. What happens when you deallocate a pointer twice or more in C++?
  8. Why, really, deleting an incomplete type is undefined behaviour?
  9. The difference between delete and delete[] in C++ [duplicate]
  10. In what cases do I use malloc and/or new?
  11. Dynamically allocating an array of objects
  12. Operator new initializes memory to zero
  13. How do you ‘realloc’ in C++?
  14. Meaning of = delete after function declaration
  15. C++, Free-Store vs Heap
  16. How to get memory usage under Windows in C++
  17. Is it possible to delete a non-new object?
  18. std::vector and contiguous memory of multidimensional arrays
  19. Pointer-to-pointer dynamic two-dimensional array
  20. Can I pass std::string to a DLL?
  21. What is “bit padding” or “padding bits” exactly?
  22. Why I can access member functions even after the object was deleted?
  23. Behaviour of malloc with delete in C++
  24. How does the custom deleter of std::unique_ptr work?
  25. How does delete work? [duplicate]
  26. If a 32-bit integer overflows, can we use a 40-bit structure instead of a 64-bit long one?
  27. Class members and explicit stack/heap allocation
  28. Calling delete on NULL pointers – C++03 vs C++11
  29. What happen to pointers when vectors need more memory and realocate memory?
  30. C++ delete does not free all memory (Windows)

Leave a Comment