Re: A proposal to cancel overriding the DEFAULT operator new/delete

xu****wei wrote:
> On 5æœ��, 上å�ˆ12æ—�ˆ†, Francis Glassborow
> <francis.glassbo...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> xu****wei wrote:
>>> I have another suggestion about memory management of ISO C++. I think
>>> it is very IM****TANT. And I hope it can be discussed in C++0x.
>> Forget it, it won't happen. Even if the Standards' Committees were not
>> in the final stages of developing C++0x it would still not happen
>> because your proposal gratuitously breaks existing code.
>>
> 
> I don't agree that my proposal breaks existing code.
Well you are  entitled to your view but I doubt that it would be shared
by those responsible for drafting C++0x

The compilers of C
> ++0x have a lot of ways to solve this. For example, the compilers can
> skip overriding operator new/delete and use the default
> implementation. 

I.e. ignore the programmers wishes. That is breaking code.

And they can give a warning that reminds programmers
> to eliminate useless codes.

Useless code? Well it wasn't till your proposal changed the rules.

 Why do I think to cancel overriding the
> DEFAULT operator new/delete is possible? Because overriding the
> DEFAULT operator new/delete only change the implementation, not the
> semantic (the concept). If implementations changes the semantic of
> DEFAULT operator new/delete, they are bad code indeed.
No, you are mistaken. Semantic refers to behaviour and overriding
operator new/operator delete is used for such things as detecting memory
leaks. I.e. it has the same behaviour + some extra.


-- 
      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm
for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]