Re: Unchecked_Deallocation vs. delete

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Maciej Sobczak" <see.my.homepage@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178871315.928116.262190@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On 11 Maj, 09:35, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
> wrote:
>
> > > Why not make a
> > > Very_Hard_To_Use_Unchecked_Deallocation_Built_In_Operator instead?
> >
> > Primitive operation of the access type you mean, there is no need to
> > introduce an operator.
>
> If there was a need to introduce 'new' as an operator...

<Pedantic>
'new' is not an operatOR, it is a primitive operatION. Operators (like "+",
"abs") can be user-defined; operations (like "new", "in", ":=") cannot.
(Well, actually operators are also operations, so it's really only
operations that are not operators that cannot.)

Dmitry was just making that distinction...
</Pedantic>

Note that some operations like "new" and ":=" can have some user-defined
behavior using another mechanism (storage pools for "new", controlled types
for ":="), but that is different than being completely user-defined.
Complete redefinition would be hard for operations, because some of the
needed semantics cannot easily be modeled as a subprogram call.

                               Randy.