From: firstname.dot.lastname@googlemail.com   
      
   On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:44:23 -0700, Seungbeom Kim wrote:   
      
   OK, It looks like I didn't state my intentions clearly...   
      
   > On 2012-09-18 06:21, Edward Rosten wrote:   
   >   
   > Why call the nothrow version, only to throw later?   
      
   I was trying to make the example applicable to a more general example   
   of resource allocation. Generally, resource allocating functions   
   (i.e. lots of stuff with a C interface) return NULL. The example was   
   meant to be representative of the general case, rather than the   
   specific case of memory, which is a bit simpler...   
      
   Perhaps using POSIX open/close would have been more illustrative.   
      
   > Again, this should be 'delete[] data;'.   
      
   Well, this lends weight to the original point :)   
      
   It's also why I don't generally write my own memory allocating   
   structures.   
      
   >> };   
   >   
   > Using a 'const' data member effectively prevents assignment, but the   
   > class still allows copy construction, which will lead to double   
   > delete.  You should do something to prohibit copy construction, or   
   > write a copy constructor with a suitable semantics.   
      
   Oops yes. I was trying to string together a quick example. The idea   
   was to avoid writing an accessor function and prevent assignment. I   
   should have added a deleted copy constructor too.   
      
      
   -Ed   
      
      
   --   
         [ 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)