Hacker News Reader

If ptr is some kind of global, then it makes sense for it not to be deallocated by the destructor? It’s apparently not really managed by this class, so why would its lifetime be tied to it?

I mean it’s psychotic to half-manage it like this but I don’t think the lack of a destructor is suspicious here; in fact I think it’s correct once the global pointer was introduced

View on HN

IMHO, there are two review branches to discuss in this example:

First, if `ptr` is declared in the translation unit before and outside defining `class foo`, then there is no check for previous initialization and thus is likely a run-time defect.

Second, if `ptr` is not declared in the translation unit before and outside defining `class foo`, then it is likely a missing member definition and is a compile-time defect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com