From -1797652380112125954 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,768d66e0db4648d6 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: chopps@water.emich.edu (Christian E. Hopps) Subject: Re: new and delete Date: 1995/09/14 Message-ID: <199509131947.PAA18378@water.emich.edu>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 110067008 approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au references: <9525704.3898@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> x-original-date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 15:51:53 -0400 cc: fjh@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) organization: - newsgroups: comp.std.c++ In article <9525704.3898@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>, fjh@mundil.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) wrote: > You can call such an operator delete using an ordinary function call, > e.g. > > operator delete(p, q); Oops, I guess everyone knows how often I use the more explicit operator syntax now. :) > >Well 5.3.4(*) references 3.7.3.2(**) which says that for global > >operator delete only one type is valid (void operator delete(void*)) > >but for class members one can define two, namely: > > > > void operator delete(void*, size_t); > > void operator delete(void*); > > 3.7.3.2 is wrong, or at least misleading. > You are allowed to define operator delete functions with any > number of arguments. Yes, 3.7.3.2 was at the root of my confusion. After posting and then later re-reading my own post I realized this. I think that 3.7.3.2 is misleading. I sent some mail to steve talking about this. I think it can be cleaned up by eliminating the second sentance of paragraph 2 and being more explicit when talking about the two member functions in question (i.e. not using language that makes them seem like the only possible choices.) --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu. Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu. The moderation policy is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]