🚀 go-pugleaf

In article d41@fsgi01.fnal.gov, b91926@fsgi01.fnal.gov (David Sachs) writes:

>The lack of a placement delete expression form, corresponding to
>the placment new form, has been a topic for serious discussion in
>this group.  The obvious problem with placement delete is that
>any non-awkward form could be ambiguous, though examples that
>would show such ambguity are probably infrequent.

>In view of this, it might be reasonable if the standards committee
>bit the bullet and declare that such ambiguous forms should be
>treated as placement deletes. 

The subject was discussed at some length in the C++ committee. The
bullet has been thoroughly chewed and is now quite unappetizing. So far
as I know, the committee has no interest in revisiting the decision.
The short answer is that a thorough analysis showed such a facility
would have too many problems and too little utility.
---
Steve Clamage, stephen.clamage@eng.sun.com
---
[ 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 
]