Alex Rivera | Logout

delete cout; delete cin; do not give compilation error - a flaw in the Standard library?

Asked 2011-09-17T08:42:04.313
14

Will the following give a compilation error?

delete cout;
delete cin;

The answer is : No.

It is a flaw in the implementation of stream classes from the Standard library. They have the following conversion function to void* type, which means, all stream objects can be implicitly converted to void*:

operator void * ( ) const;

This is very useful in general as it lets us write very idiomatic loop, say, when reading input from files. But at the same time, it lets user to write delete stream. As I said, you can delete any stream object. So all of these are allowed:

delete ss;  //declare std::stringstream ss;
delete iss; //declare std::istringstream iss;
delete oss; //declare std::ostringstream oss;

Only that they'll give a warning, saying (see at ideone):

warning: deleting ‘void*’ is undefined

which you can easily avoid just by casting, say, tochar*. But the program has still issue, and most likely will crash when running it.

--

So my question is, has this issue been addressed and fixed, in C++11? The following article provides one fix for this problem:

--

Edit:

From @Xeo's comment on @Alf's answer:

Edit
Report

1 Answer

0

If I can give my 2 cents, I think the standard library "flawed" a bit, with all the good intentions.

The operator void*() had been introduced to allow code like while(stream) or if(!stream) or while(stream && ...), without giving an implicit access to integer arithmetic (that operator bool whould have given). In fact, this disable integer arithmetic, but gives access to pointer features (like delete ...).

Now, in C++0x, an explicit oeprator bool() had been introduced. It doesn't implicitly give access to whatever feature, since it requires an implicit conversion. But ... wait a bit: 'while(bool(stream))' or even while(static_cast<bool>(stream)) are so wordy... Operator ! is explicit, and 'while(!!stream)' looks so effective that I even wonder why not accept this as a paradigm:

If I want something to be explicitly converted into bool, I just provide an operator!() and give to ! the memaning of "is not valid" and of !! as "is valid".

Much safer then an implicit conversion and not uselessly wordy: after all ! exist from ever!

answered 2011-09-17T14:28:35.737

Your Answer