From -2998618064581889900 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,768d66e0db4648d6 X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public From: wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu (David Wald) Subject: Re: new and delete Date: 1995/09/14 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 110133973 approved: matt@physics10.Berkeley.EDU (Matt Austern) references: organization: Theory of Computation, LCS, MIT newsgroups: comp.std.c++ In article clamage@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Clamage) writes: >I haven't found any contradictory statements about this in the WP, >including what you referenced in the original article. The WP does >not mention all the possibilities in each place where it talks >about deallocation, so perhaps that is confusing. But if you do >find wording that seems contradictory or is in particular confusing >(as opposed to the subject being confusing), please let me know, >or post it here. I certainly found the public draft confusing in this regard. Although the term "placement delete" is used in a couple of places, I found no clear definition of the term, nor was there a corresponding entry in the index. [basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation] (3.7.3.2) only mentions "placement delete" in reference to delete(void*,size_t); [expr.new](5.3.4), in turn, seems to refer to 3.7.3.2 for a definition of "placement delete". Now that I know what I'm looking for, I suppose that all the definitions are there to be inferred, but they're hard to see if you don't already know what they're going to say. -David -- ============================================================================ David Wald http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~wald/ wald@theory.lcs.mit.edu "Blessed are the peacocks, for they shall be called sonship of God" -- Matt 5:9, from a faulty QuickVerse 2.0 ============================================================================ --- [ 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. ]