🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3160CA2D.646FFC15@cantrip.org>,
Nathan Myers, http://www.cantrip.org/ <ncm@cantrip.org> wrote:
>Steven Correll (sjc@netcom.com) wrote:
>>
>> I don't see how a compiler could avoid noticing that it hasn't a clue what
>> destructor to invoke at compilation time. Is there a reason ... not to 
>> require the compiler to diagnose this as an error, instead of allowing 
>> it to fault at execution time?
>
>I have to agree with Steven ... it's silly to talk about preserving
>legacy C code that has "delete" statements in it.  Given the great
>difficulty in finding bugs introduced this way, and the great ease of
>introducing them accidentally through inclusion errors, we certainly
>should change something.
>
>Fortunately fixing this would be a restriction, not an extension,
>and thus is still conceivable in this round of standardization.

So are you volunteering to champion a formal proposal to the
committee to add this restriction in this round of standardization?

Although it doesn't count in the committee, you do have my vote.

---
Ajay Kamdar        |    Email: ajay@lehman.com    |    Standard Disclaimer 
Lehman Brothers    |    Phone: (201) 524-5048     |
---
[ 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                             ]