Re: operator new/delete forwarding

[Martin Sebor <sebor at roguewave dot com>]

Howard Hinnant wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2006, at 3:57 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> > Howard Hinnant wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > I view this forwarding as a valuable convenience to the client,   
> > > however I believe it is incomplete, and slightly wrong.  I   
> > > respectfully propose the following slight alteration:
> >
> >
> > This makes sense but I wonder why the standard doesn't specify
> > the nothrow operators just the way you describe instead of going
> > through the same steps as for the ordinary forms and using the
> > "as if" phrase? It almost looks like the intent was for both
> > operators to be implemented in terms of the same (unspecified)
> > function but not by calling each other, i.e., like so (calling
> > new_handler omitted):
[...]
> 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?

Martin