🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4j4ec5$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. That should be anything of the form:

|> delete leftparenthesis expressionlist rightparenthesis expression

|> delete[] leftparenthesis expressionlist rightparenthesis expression

|> Admitedly, this would probably break some existing code, but the
|> broken expressions can be fixed by adding parentheses.

Is the expression: delete (*pf)( p ) placement delete or not?  (The
variable pf has type `T* (*)( T* )', and p type T*.)  If not, why not?
If so, how can I remove the ambiguity (by adding parentheses or
otherwise)?

--
James Kanze         Tel.: (+33) 88 14 49 00        email: kanze@gabi-soft.fr
GABI Software, Sarl., 8 rue des Francs-Bourgeois, F-67000 Strasbourg, France
Conseils, études et réalisations en logiciel orienté objet --
                -- A la recherche d'une activité dans une region francophone



[ 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         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]