Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 866259
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 15, 20262026-05-15T09:46:32+00:00 2026-05-15T09:46:32+00:00

Imagine I have a class that allocates memory (forget about smart pointers for now):

  • 0

Imagine I have a class that allocates memory (forget about smart pointers for now):

class Foo
{
public:
  Foo() : bar(new Bar)
  {
  }

  ~Foo()
  {
    delete bar;
  }

  void doSomething()
  {
    bar->doSomething();
  }

private:
  Bar* bar;
};

As well as deleting the objects in the destructor is it also worth setting them to NULL?

I’m assuming that setting the pointer to NULL in the destructor of the example above is a waste of time.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-15T09:46:33+00:00Added an answer on May 15, 2026 at 9:46 am

    Since the destructor is the last thing that is called on an object before it “dies,” I would say there is no need to set it to NULL afterwards.

    In any other case, I always set a pointer to NULL after calling delete on it.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Imagine I have a class in C# called Bar that has a public function
Imagine I have a C++ class Foo and a class Bar which has to
Imagine that I have a generic base class like this: public abstract class AnimalDTO<TA,
Imagine that I have a nice Deck class, in the best OO fashion. It
Imagine I have an entity: public class MyObject { public string Name { get;
Imagine I have a class that represents a simple washing machine. It can perform
I'm using StructureMap for my DI. Imagine I have a class that takes 1
Imagine that I have a Debtor class. With Hibernate, I will define the class
Imagine I have this class public class Case { [Key] [DataMember] public int CaseId
Imagine I have this class public class Case { [Key] [DataMember] public int CaseId

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.