operator new/delete forwarding

[Martin Sebor]

Howard Hinnant wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2006, Howard Hinnant wrote:
> (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2006-07/msg00157.html)
> 
>> On Jul 25, 2006, at 8:35 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>>
>>> OK, you guys have changed my mind and convinced me we should proceed
>>> as Martin suggests.
>>> We'll meet at Portalnd and rubber-stamp Howard's suggestion if LWG
>>> feels OK :-)
>>> Howard, you know the Master of LWG issue list, right? :-)
>>
>> I'll interpret that as a request to reopen lwg 206. Consider it done:
>>
>> <note>
>> Reopened due to a gcc conversation between Howard, Martin and Gaby. 
>> Forwarding
>> or not is visible behavior to the client and it would be useful for 
>> the client
>> to know which behavior it could depend on.
>> </note>
> 
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-active.html#206
> 
> was voted into the C++0X working draft on Friday April 20, 2007.

I must have been asleep when we discussed this issue in Oxford.
The Rationale in the issue on your home page:
http://home.twcny.rr.com/hinnant/cpp_extensions/issues_preview/lwg-defects.html#206
still says that "[the operators] may become unlinked, and that
is by design. If a user replaces one, the user should also
replace the other." Doesn't the resolution go against that design?
If it does, what was the rationale for the change? And how did we
address Robert's compatibility concern? (Sorry to be asking these
questions now instead of when we talked about it.)

Thanks
Martin

> 
> <sigh> It took nearly a year, but I believe it is a done deal now. :-)
> 
> -Howard
>