Re: Allocating memory with "new"

Pat wrote:
> I have a question about the new operator.  The syntax for it is:
> 
>     int * pointer = new int;
> 
> which says that "pointer" points to a type int variable.
> 
> My question is why is "int" needed twice?  I know it's needed from a 
> syntax standpoint, but I don't understand what additional information 
> the second int really provides.  Doesn't the first int already tell you 
> that an int type value is going to be stored at the "pointer" address? 
> Can you ever have,
> 
>     int * pointer = new double
> 
> or something like that?
> 
> Thanks for any feedback on this.

So are you advocating:

int * pointer = new;

??

Even if you are this only applies to fundamental types:

Given:

class A {
// definition
};

class B: public A {
// definition
};

It is perfectly legal to write:

A* a_ptr = new B;

and if A is the base of a polymorphic hierarchy (i.e. has a virtual 
dtor) it would actually be quite common to do so.