🚀 go-pugleaf

In the Xerox language Mesa, storage allocation ( new, delete )
was completely independent from the object ( allocator, destructor )
The object did not implement its own allocator.
STL does this, but the implementation is not simple and it is
not clear this can be used for anything except to hide the near\far\huge
of bizare systems.

  Is there a reason orthogonal storage management was not done for C++.
The current design results in the frequent question "How do I pass
a parameter to/overload the global delete method".  

Any frequent mistake/assumption by a programmer about a language
I consider a design mistake in the language.  C/C++ is full of them.

Ken Walter


[ 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. ]