🚀 go-pugleaf

In article K1q@netcom.com, smeyers@netcom.com (Scott Meyers) writes:
>In article <40ak2i$9oa@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> clamage@Eng.Sun.COM writes:
>| It is covered. There is no syntax for getting an overloaded operator delete
>| via a delete-expression. You can define a "placement delete", but it is
>| called only if
>|  - a constructor invoked from a placement-new expression exits via an exception, or
>|  - you call the operator delete explicitly.
>| That is:
>| 	T* p ...
>| 	delete p; // never calls a placement delete
>| 	// but you can do this
>| 	p->~T(); // call destructor
>| 	operator delete(p, &allocator);
>
>Okay, what am I missing?  DWP 3.7.3.2 says that if operator delete has a
>second parameter, it must be of type size_t.   

My copy of the 28 April 1995 draft doesn't say that. It says a class
member operator delete (which the above example isn't) MAY have a
second parameter of type size_t. I don't see anything that says that
the second parameter if present must have type size_t. See also 5.3.4.

---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com