Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > 1) If you ever get the temptation of using the keyword 'new', don't.
> >    (And no, "malloc()" is not good either. See rule 3.)

>         Out of curiosity, how realistic is that? Can you give a scenario where 
> one *should* use new? (i.e. can't find a way around it).

  I don't know about "should", but there are certainly situations where
there's no way around it, so it's a "must". For example if you want to
write a special dynamic data container not offered by the standard library.
There are also situations where you have to allocate dynamically some
object because it cannot be a direct member variable of a class (eg.
because it doesn't have a default constructor and the constructor
parameters cannot be known when the outer class is constructed, but
only later).

  In the latter case it's often a good idea to use some type of smart
pointer (or, alternativaly, forbid the copying/assignment of the outer
class, although that's not always an option).

> > 2) If possible, avoid using pointers.

>         As in, use references instead?

  Mostly. (Althoug it *is* possible to misuse references. Just not as
easily.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message