🚀 go-pugleaf

Matt Timmermans wrote:
> Yes, and this is very annoying.  The lack of a placement-delete makes
> placement-new nearly useless.  I can't, in fact, think of a single way that
> placement-new could be used properly.
> 
> The lack of a placement-delete is on of the many factors in C++ conspiring
> to make it absolutely impossible to make generic collections that hold
> actual objects (with constructors) instead of just pointers.

With all due repsect please examine STL carefully.

Who needs "delete"? With STL, deallocation of storage
and destruction of an object are separable.
If you don't like "delete", just don't use it.

The same applies to "new" -- the ONLY form of
new that is necessary is the standard placement form,
because that is the way to create an object in a 
specified storage location. So that, too, allows
separation of construction and allocation.

With your own deallocation functions, you can
do whatever overloading you want. So what is the problem?

-- 
John Max Skaller               voice: 61-2-566-2189
81 Glebe Point Rd              fax:   61-2-660-0850
GLEBE NSW 2037                 web: http://www.maxtal.com.au/~skaller/
AUSTRALIA                      email: skaller@maxtal.com.au
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]