default random object?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Lionello Lunesu wrote:
>> My point was that realloc() is wrong, not free(). The sorely missing 
>> allocation primitive is expand(), and we've been paying for it through 
>> the nose for decades.
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> What would expand's signature be? It needs the current pointer, it needs 
> the new size. Seems that it's nothing else than a renamed realloc.

realloc moves memory, expand wouldn't. That delivered a fatal blow to 
C++ making its allocation primitives inferior to C's.

> The problem is just that realloc allows null-pointer (=malloc) and 
> 0-size (=free), thereby making malloc/free obsolete.

That's the least of its problems.

Andrei