Re: Defect report: [lex.key] and [lex.operators] contradict each other
On Aug 3, 5:37 pm, Francis Glassborow
<francis.glassbo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
<james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
[lex.key] and [lex.operators] give contradictory information as
to the status of new and delete: in [lex.key], they are
keywords, but in [lex.operators], they are listed as
preprocessing-op-or-punc. This affects the legality of programs
such as:
#define new 0
int
main()
{
return new ;
}
If new is a keyword, the above is a legal C++ program; if new is
a preprocessing-op-or-punc, it is not.
It has just crossed my mind that the problem may have arisen because new
and delete in C++ have two distinct meanings. We have them as operators
where they are user replaceable and overloadable. We also have them as
non-operators where they are neither replaceable nor overloadable.
All uses of new or delete are as operators. What you're
referring to is the fact that user overloads of them work in a
decidedly different fashion than any other user overloads.
int main(){
void * memory = operator new(1000);
mytype* = new mytype;
}
It is worth noting that many of the suggested preprocessor
substitutions seem to assume that the programmer only uses the
second case.
And also that he doesn't use any placement new.
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze:gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient?e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S?mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'?cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]