🚀 go-pugleaf

clamage@Eng.sun.com (Steve Clamage) writes:

>mgb@kronecker.mitre.org (G. Mike Butler D054) writes:
>>According to the ARM section 5.3.3:
>>     "operator new() can be called with the argument
>>      zero.  Repeated such calls return pointers to
>>      distinct objects."  
>     
>>But when I execute the following:
[...]
>>      foo *p = new foo[0];
>>      foo *q = new foo[0];
[...]
>>I get
>>    0x338d8 0x338e8
>
>>While these are distinct pointers, the pointers refer to overlapping
>>objects.
>
>No, they don't.

You're right, but there *is* a contraction in the draft standard.

5.3.4[expr.new]/8 says "... the allocation function is called to allocate
an array with no elements", but 8.3.4[dcl.array]/1 says "An object of
array type contains a contiguously allocated non-empty set of N sub-objects".

I think that the adjective "non-empty" should be deleted from 8.3.4/8;
it already states in 8.3.4/1 that array bounds in array type declarations
must be greater than zero.

--
Any mail to me between Feb 24th and 27th may have gone to the bit bucket
(#&$^@$!# mail software silently ignored disk full error).  Please resend.
(comp.std.c++ articles were not affected, so no need to resend those.)
Fergus Henderson             	WWW: http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh
fjh@cs.mu.oz.au              	PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu
]