Thanks for the great replies!

Quote Originally Posted by deoren View Post
Should the temporary pointer be explicitly deleted instead of relying on the end of the function call to remove it?
To answer that question, no, you should not do that. When I did so (cstack.cpp, r18) I was thinking of getting rid of the variable itself, but instead I was freeing up the memory I had just purposely reserved for the updated array (and now assigned to this->plist). My best guess is that I should allow the tmp_stack pointer to pass out of scope and be removed like an ordinary local variable (cstack.cpp, r19).

Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
Yes, you can do that. So long as you do not create a new variable with an identical name to one stored as a class member, you do not need "this->". It is implicitly deduced by the compiler.
If you do shadow a member variable, then you do need "this->" to distinguish between the two variables. If you omit it, the local variable will be used instead.
Many programmers actually tend to prefer prefixing or subfixing (is that a word?) member variables to distinguish them from local ones. I always tend to add "m_" to all member variables.
Good tip. I've seen the m_ prefix used quite a bit in the book I'm going through, and as my mistake has shown me, there is evidently a really good reason for doing so.

Quote Originally Posted by whiteflags View Post
You got the plot.
Awesome, thanks for the confirmation.