Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!pp!pink!rfg
From: rfg@pink.ACA.MCC.COM (Ron Guilmette)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: operator new() scoping
Keywords: storage management garbage collection new delete private
Message-ID: <242@pink.ACA.MCC.COM>
Date: 9 Jun 89 19:57:39 GMT
References: <1989Jun7.115321.22620@mntgfx.mentor.com>
Reply-To: rfg@pink.aca.mcc.com.UUCP (Ron Guilmette)
Organization: MCC  Austin, Texas
Lines: 31

In article <1989Jun7.115321.22620@mntgfx.mentor.com> nmyers@mntgfx.mentor.com (Nathan Myers) writes:
^ >Providing arguments for operators new() and delete() is a major
^ >advance.  It offers more power than "this=" semantics, and allows
^ >smaller, faster code.  However,

... [ problems ] ...

^ >This seems inconsistent to me.  Other overloaded functions don't
^ >hide their neighbors, why should operator new()?  The standard way
^ >to hide a global is to declare a member with the same name and arguments.
^ >Then, if I (as class T author) want to disallow ::operator new(size_t),
^ >I can declare a private one and not define it.
^ >
^ >A self-consistent alternative to the posted semantics is:
^ >1. Member operator new(size_t, class Foo) doesn't hide global ::new(size_t).
                                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Do you mean ::operator new(size_t) ?

^ >2. Member operator new(size_t) may be declared private.
^ >3. "::new T" is not valid syntax.  (It seems unnecessary, and dangerous.)
    ^^^^^^^^

Did you mean ::operator new T  ?


-- 
// Ron Guilmette  -  MCC  -  Experimental Systems Kit Project
// 3500 West Balcones Center Drive,  Austin, TX  78759  -  (512)338-3740
// ARPA: rfg@mcc.com
// UUCP: {rutgers,uunet,gatech,ames,pyramid}!cs.utexas.edu!pp!rfg