Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!daver!ditka!comeau
From: comeau@ditka.Chicago.COM (Greg Comeau)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: operator new
Keywords: new, arm
Message-ID: <39026@ditka.Chicago.COM>
Date: 16 May 91 13:48:24 GMT
References: <1107@rna.UUCP>
Reply-To: comeau@csanta.attmail.com (Greg Comeau)
Organization: Comeau Computing
Lines: 28

In article <1107@rna.UUCP> kc@rna.UUCP (Kaare Christian) writes:
>I haven't noticed any discussion of the following contradiction in the ARM:
>In 5.3.3 there is a mention that operator new can be called with argument 0,
>in which case it must return a pointer to an object.
>In 12.5 it states that if operator new is called with argument 0, it must
>return 0.


I had brought this issue up on BIX quite a while back.

12.5 is wrong.

>Also, the ARM defines a *nested* class as a class defined inside another
>class, while a *local* class is a class defined inside a function. It then
>defines a *local* type as a type defined inside a class. Shouldn't we
>call 'em **nested** types?

It should be local... as is.  The first line of 9.9 says it all to me:
"Type names obey exactly the same scope rules as other names."

"local" is a C++ scope.

- Greg
-- 
	 Comeau Computing, 91-34 120th Street, Richmond Hill, NY, 11418
                          Producers of Comeau C++ 2.1
          Here:attmail.com!csanta!comeau / BIX:comeau / CIS:72331,3421
                     Voice:718-945-0009 / Fax:718-441-2310