C/C++ Learning C++: New & Delete Functions

[Silicon Waffle]

Yesterday I learned about new and delete in my teacher lecture.

I have a function that looks like this

string func()
{
    //...
    sometype * boot=new sometype();
    // do something with boot
    string s=boot->getStr();
    return s;
}

The function works

but if I rewrite it as

string func()
{
    //...
    sometype * boot=new sometype();
    // do something with boot
    string s=boot->getStr();
    delete boot;
    return s;
}

then I have an exception. And if I use a reference like this

string func()
{
    //...
    sometype  boot;
    // do something with t
    string s=boot.getStr();
    return s;
}

I also have an exception as boot is empty.

 

[wle]

How is "sometype" defined? What the second and third versions of your function have in common is that sometype's destructor is called (when you use delete in version 2 and when func returns in version 3), which can throw an exception.

(The first version of your function looks like it has a different bug -- a memory leak -- since you allocate memory but never release it. Run for (;;) { func(); } and watch your computer grind to a halt as its memory fills up.)

 

[D H]

Yesterday I learned about new and delete in my teacher lecture.

<begin gripe>
This is 2015, four years after C++11 (and one year after C++14) was officially released. Why are teachers still teaching that arcane stuff? There are free compilers for C++98/03, C++11, and C++14. Nowadays, the keywords new and delete should be taught as advanced topics.
<end gripe>

I have a function that looks like this

string func()
{
    //...
    sometype * boot=new sometype();
    // do something with boot
    string s=boot->getStr();
    return s;
}

The function works

but if I rewrite it as

void func()
{
    //...
    sometype * boot=new sometype();
    // do something with boot
    string s=boot->getStr();
    delete boot;
    return s;
}

then I have an exception.

That depends entirely on how string is defined, which you haven't shown. If you are using a modern (C++98/03 or later) compiler and if you are using using namespace std; (aside: never do that), there is no problem.

On the other hand, if your string is something very different from std::string, you potentially have much worse than an "exception". You might well have "undefined behavior". Referring to memory that has been deleted is quintessential undefined behavior.

And if I use a reference like this

void func()
{
    //...
    sometype  boot;
    // do something with t
    string s=boot.getStr();
    return s;
}

I also have an exception as boot is empty.

You haven't shown us what sometype is. Since it has a member function getStr, it is not a primitive type. Therefore sometype boot; is not "empty". Instead, boot is initialized with the default constructor for class sometype.

 

[Integrand]

What was your reason for changing the return type to void?

 

[Silicon Waffle]

What was your reason for changing the return type to void?

I edit my OP, it was typos.

 

[Silicon Waffle]

<begin gripe>
This is 2015, four years after C++11 (and one year after C++14) was officially released. Why are teachers still teaching that arcane stuff? There are free compilers for C++98/03, C++11, and C++14. Nowadays, the keywords new and delete should be taught as advanced topics.
<end gripe>

I think it has only one rule, use new then use delete, why should they be in advanced topics ?

That depends entirely on how string is defined, which you haven't shown. If you are using a modern (C++98/03 or later) compiler and if you are using using namespace std; (aside: never do that), there is no problem.
On the other hand, if your string is something very different from std::string, you potentially have much worse than an "exception". You might well have "undefined behavior". Referring to memory that has been deleted is quintessential undefined behavior.

I actually have *using namespace std;* at the top of the program source code.
Why do coders should never use that line in code ?

You haven't shown us what sometype is. Since it has a member function getStr, it is not a primitive type. Therefore sometype boot; is not "empty". Instead, boot is initialized with the default constructor for class sometype.

For example, my teacher yesterdays showed us this code piece and I wonder why there isn't any delete after new.

usingnamespace std;
int main(int argc,char**argv){
    time_facet *facet =new time_facet("%d-%b-%Y %H:%M:%S");
    cout.imbue(locale(cout.getloc(), facet));
    cout << second_clock::local_time()<< endl; return 0;
}

I now think the locale() ate it up. After that, it frees facet internally and secretly. but things like this are good to learn at all ?

 

[D H]

I think it has only one rule, use new then use delete, why should they be in advanced topics ?

In modern C++, the only place you should be using new and delete in your own code is if you are creating a low-level RAII class. Knowing how to do that correctly can be non-trivial. Knowing how to do that correctly and to provide some minimal level of exception safety can be highly non-trivial. Introductory level students don't know what RAII and exception safety mean, nor should they need to know that stuff.

Behind the scenes, there's a good amount of allocated memory with many of the standard library classes. The nice thing: You as a user of those classes don't need to know about that. Just declare a variable as a type of one of those standard library classes and the behind-the-scences memory is automagically deleted when the variable goes out of scope.

For example,

    #include <list>
    #include <iostream>
    int main ()
    { 
       std::list<int> integer_list;
       integer_list.push_back (42);
       integer_list.push_front (0);
       for (auto elem : integer_list)
       { 
          std::cout << elem << "\n";
       } 
    }

I actually have *using namespace std;* at the top of the program source code.
Why do coders should never use that line in code ?

It's extremely bad in a header file. In a source file, it's just bad (but not extremely bad).

The primary purpose of having namespaces is to protect against the name collision problem that plagues the C language. Using using namespace xxx; undermines that protection. Using using namespace std; is particularly bad because there are so very many common names in namespace std.

For example, my teacher yesterdays showed us this code piece and I wonder why there isn't any delete after new.

usingnamespace std;
int main(int argc,char**argv){
    time_facet *facet =new time_facet("%d-%b-%Y %H:%M:%S");
    cout.imbue(locale(cout.getloc(), facet));
    cout << second_clock::local_time()<< endl; return 0;
}

I now think the locale() ate it up. After that, it frees facet internally and secretly. but things like this are good to learn at all ?

Things like this are things you should learn well after you learn the basics. You need to understand reference-counted pointers to understand how facets work. That's advanced stuff.