Michael Marcin wrote:
That's pretty much what I figured. Also I believe the added inline keyword is redundant as a function defined inside of a class declaration is the same as defining inline after the closing semi-colon of the class correct?
Your interpretation is correct, the inline specifier is redundant here.
The copy constructor argument Richard Hadsell mentioned I hadn't even considered and it is a good argument in its own right.
I would like to strengthen Richard's remarks: The newly proposed class violates the "rule of three", because it define's the d'tor, but forget's to implement copy c'tor and copy-assignment op (which is, as Richard already said, a bad idea here). Astonishingly for an expert...
This really should be emphasized. Having a pointer to dynamically allocated buffer without custom copy constructor/copy assignment?Sooner or later somebody will try to copy it ... The "optimized" code is plainly wrong for the reasons other people already pointed out. I can't belive somebody starts optimizing code without first learning the basics of the language semantics and the libraries used. Leon