operator new/delete forwarding
Howard Hinnant
hhinnant@apple.com
Tue Jul 25 22:56:00 GMT 2006
On Jul 20, 2006, at 9:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> I think the standard allows either implementation. Imho the one
>> I outlined is higher quality. I brought this issue up a long
>> time ago with the LWG:
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-closed.html#206
>
> Hmm, but the Rationale for closing this issue as NAD was that [the
> possibility that the operators would become unlinked] was by design.
> Doesn't that mean that it's a deliberate feature for users to be
> able to replace one without causing the other to be replaced as
> well?
I would call it a deliberate implementation degree of freedom, rather
than a behavior that the client can rely on. The standard text
doesn't mandate forwarding, nor forbid it. Thus the client can not
count on it existing or not existing, despite the fact that it is
very visible. So as implementors, our job becomes to decide which
technique is most valuable to the customer and go with that. If at
some future date all vendors come to the same conclusion, the
committee might standardize existing practice (if prodded into it).
-Howard
More information about the Libstdc++
mailing list