how to double an array size?

yes they are. Well then there must be something wrong then, cause it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raigne

yes they are. Well then there must be something wrong then, cause it works.

---

Sorry, you are mistaken. It's like you're swearing black and blue that 1+1 equals 3. All C++ programmers KNOW it is 100% completely impossible for that to work.

well the following code produces 0 as a result

Code:

---

void DeletePtr(void* ptr)
{
  delete ptr;
  ptr = 0;
}

int main()
{
  int* t = new int(100);
  DeletePtr(t);
  std::cout << t << std::endl;
  system("pause");
  return 0;
}

---

Code:

---

C:\Documents and Settings\Andrew\Desktop>temp
0x3d3d78

---

You have an interesting concept of zero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raigne

well the following code produces 0 as a result

Code:

---

void DeletePtr(void* ptr)
{
  delete ptr;
  ptr = 0;
}

int main()
{
  int* t = new int(100);
  DeletePtr(t);
  std::cout << t << std::endl;
  system("pause");
  return 0;
}

---

---

Nope, that exact program can never print 0 (except that technically null does not have to equal zero, but we can forget that for the purposes of this discussion as nobody here is using such an architecture). In fact just ran it myself and of course got some random hexadecimal address. Your compiler would have to be completely broken to get a zero out of that.
Perhaps you're seeing the return value from main instead.

hmm, dunno. I know this one is pretty much guaranteed to work in most cases.

Code:

---

template<class t>
void DeletePtr(t*& ptr)
{
  delete ptr;
  ptr = 0;
}
template<class t>
void DeletePtrA(t*& ptr)
{
  delete []ptr;
  ptr = 0;
}

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tabstop

You have an interesting concept of zero.

---

Well... if you ignore the part after and including the 'x', you did get 0 :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iMalc

except that technically null does not have to equal zero

---

A null pointer constant does evaluate to zero though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raigne

I know this one is pretty much guaranteed to work in most cases.

---

Well, now you fixed it to pass the pointer by reference ;)