Re: operator new/delete forwarding

[Howard Hinnant <hhinnant at apple dot com>]

On Jul 20, 2006, at 9:07 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:

> > 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?

I would call it a deliberate implementation degree of freedom, rather  
than a behavior that the client can rely on.  The standard text  
doesn't mandate forwarding, nor forbid it.  Thus the client can not  
count on it existing or not existing, despite the fact that it is  
very visible.  So as implementors, our job becomes to decide which  
technique is most valuable to the customer and go with that.  If at  
some future date all vendors come to the same conclusion, the  
committee might standardize existing practice (if prodded into it).

-Howard