From: brangdon@cix.co.uk   
      
   francis.glassborow@btinternet.com (Francis Glassborow) wrote (abridged):   
   > I challenge the reader to come up with a legitimate implementation   
   > of the delete and delete[] expressions that does not first check for a   
   > null pointer.   
   >   
   > Note that operator delete() and operator delete[]() is not called   
   > till AFTER the dtor(s) are executed so the check needs to be part   
   > of the delete/delete[] expression.   
      
   It could do the check multiple times, once for each destructor and once   
   in operator delete(). I believe that's how it was implemented in the   
   olden days. Constructors and destructors did the memory allocation and   
   deallocation, and were passed flags (or a non-null address) if they were   
   stack allocated. Separating memory management from   
   construction/destruction happened later (although before C++ was first   
   standardised). Even if my memory of old implementations is wrong, it   
   could be done like that and still conform.   
      
   -- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK.   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)