I came upon a similar piece of code during an IRC discussion. While I am certain that some may consider this example trivial, I admit that the correct answer eluded me even after I verified the result with the compiler – it wasn’t until I checked the standard that it became clear.
With the increasing probability of your average project using at least C++11, std::unique_ptr is one of the most popular solutions1 to dynamically managing memory in C++.
It usually goes like this: if your object can’t be a scoped object, that is one with automatic lifetime (colloquially: on the stack, or a class’s member), wrap it in std::unique_ptr. This will ensure it’s freed when it finally goes out of scope. Herb Sutter goes more in-depth into this topic in his last C++Con talk:
Just a quick note: I’ve written an article outlining features of the upcoming C++17. It’s available in the freshly published issue of the “Programista” magazine (available in subscription, Empik stores and probably somewhere else, too). If you can read in Polish you might find it interesting :)
As you can see, the alternative tokens are defined to behave exactly the same as their counterparts. So the following code is perfectly well-defined and legit, despite the opinion of your fellow reviewer
A few weeks ago Gynvael Coldwind announced a contest (I’m sorry, the link is in Polish) related to his excellent OS dev streams (again, in Polish, but if you do understand it, definitely consider watching them). The task was simple: make a BIOS-bootable diskette image with the prettiest graphical effect; all in 16-bit text mode, with binary size limit of 512 bytes.