I am getting run-error on providing default destructor. However, if left to compiler to provide default destructor it is running safely.
Turned out it was a simple constructor miss-use problem. Please see the \"edit\" section for the updated information.
It just happened to me I wondered how resources are freed in the following case. class Base { Resource *r;
Consider the following code: class A { public: A() {} ~A() {} }; class B: public A { B() {} ~B() {} }; A* b = new B;
I have spot the following pattern in code I\'m working with: in some classes in destructor I have found private variable being nulled, in example:
I\'m just curious to know if there is any significant/serious difference in these three approaches of invoking destructor. Consider the following code. Please also consider the two cases mentioned in
I had no clue why this doesn\'t work. The following Function is created by placement new. A function is provided that checks whether it should be destructed, and if so, calls its destructor manually.
I\'m currently writing a program with the following polymorphic hierarchy: Base: Multinumber. Derived: Pairs, Complex, Rational. Multinumber is a virtual class and is never instantiated.
I use a static variable for holding the count of objects. In constructor I increase this variable. This way I know how many instances of the object are creat开发者_StackOverflow社区ed.
I just started my container class and already I\'m having issues: class Container { private: string* BasePointer; // The starting pointer.
加载中,请稍侯......