Can A New Be Used In Place Of Old Mallocq? If Yes, Why?

1.	Can A New Be Used In Place Of Old Mallocq? If Yes, Why?
Answer» The new operator should be used in place of OLD malloc because the new operator ENSURES the CALLING of an appropriate DESTRUCTOR at the TIME of execution and also it is more type-safe than mallocQ. The new operator should be used in place of old malloc because the new operator ensures the calling of an appropriate destructor at the time of execution and also it is more type-safe than mallocQ.

Answer»

The new operator should be used in place of OLD malloc because the new operator ENSURES the CALLING of an appropriate DESTRUCTOR at the TIME of execution and also it is more type-safe than mallocQ.

The new operator should be used in place of old malloc because the new operator ensures the calling of an appropriate destructor at the time of execution and also it is more type-safe than mallocQ.

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Write A Code Snippet To Display An Integer In A Binary Format?
Explain The Concept Of Dynamic Allocation Of Memory?
Write About The Local Class And Mention Its Use?
Write About A Nested Class And Mention Its Use?
Define Pure Virtual Function?
How Does List R; Differs From List R();?
Explain How Would You Handle A Situation Where You Cannot Call The Destructor Of A Local Explicitly?
What Is The Sequence Of Destruction Of Local Objects?
Define A Conversion Constructor?
Is It Possible To Pass An Object Of The Same Class In Place Of Object Reference To The Copy Constructor?

Can A New Be Used In Place Of Old Mallocq? If Yes, Why?

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment