Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-programming (96 mails)

["Steven T. Hatton" <hattons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday 31 March 2003 10:08 am, Steven T. Hatton wrote:

>
> > I hope that the above information has been useful.
>
> Indeed.  I guess the most important thing I got out of it is that pointers
> don't control the memory they point to.  I guess I knew that at one point,
> I just got used to Java's way of keeping track of references. The same can
> be done in C++, but we have to do it ourselves.  If I want to keep the
> data in a variable from getting zapped, I have to keep the variable
> alive(in scope, or static).  Is that pretty much a correct statement?

Let me refine this.  Upon reflection, I realized what I said is only accurate 
regarding fundamental types.  Objects are the other way around.  I have to 
tell them to go away explicitly, or they just sit there and take space.  And 
if I don't to that before I remove the last pointer to the object, then I 
have not way to access the destructor.

> STH