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

> Why overriding the DEFAULT operator new/delete is bad?
>
> Allowing to override the DEFAULT operator new/delete means the DEFAULT
> operator new/delete are special operators. When we have more than one
> implementations of an operator, the compiler/linker will re****t a
> redefining error. However, it allows there are two implementations of
> the DEFAULT operator new/delete (one of them is implemented as
> default). It sounds good. But, This gives a hint that there may have
> many implementations of the DEFAULT operator new/delete. When this
> happens, the compiler/linker doesn't know what should it do

If your proposal ever got off the ground, how do you expect the authors of
the 3rd party library to use the compiler to compile their version of
operator new/delete?
Because your change means the compiler vendor should ignore the 3rd party
library's operator new/delete and prefer its own version.

In any case, it does not work like this.
It is usually the case that the programmers versions of
functions/data/objects etc are preferred by the linker before searching
libraries  for missing symbols.

Stephen Howe



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