Re: [boost] A nonnewable class

From: Marshall Clow (marshall_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-21 19:05:02

At 7:44 PM -0400 8/21/00, Daryle Walker wrote:
>Should we have a "nonnewable" class?  It is similar to noncopyable, but it
>bans new and delete instead.  Here's a quick mock-up:

Didn't Scott Meyers talk about this?
<flip, flip, flip, aha! More Effective C++, item #27>

>//==========================================================================
>namespace boost
>{
>    //...
>
>    class nonnewable
>    {
>    protected:
>        nonnewable()    {}
>        ~nonnewable()   {}  // should this be virtual?
>
>    private:
>        void *  operator new( std::size_t );
>        void    operator delete( void *, std::size_t );
>        void *  operator new[]( std::size_t );
>        void    operator delete[]( void *, std::size_t );
>    };
>
>    //...
>}
>//==========================================================================
>
>Would this prevent someone from creating an object of this class
>dynamically? 

There's also "placement new", which this doesn't prevent.
     void* operator new ( std::size_t, void* ptr );

Other than that, it should work fine.
-- 
-- Marshall
"The era of big government is over."
           Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996
Marshall Clow     MusicMatch   <mailto:mclow_at_[hidden]>