http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2590
Justin Spahr-Summers <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] | |om --- Comment #3 from Justin Spahr-Summers <[email protected]> 2010-04-04 15:35:10 CDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > He is talking about constructors/destructors, not allocators/deallocators. I > totally agree the destructor must not be called on a partially constructed > object. Conversely, the memory that has been successfully allocated for an > object needs to be properly deallocated even if the constructor fails. > > On the other hand, if overloaded new/delete are going to be removed from the > language, the problem will pass away. When one uses class allocators/deallocators, it's basically like taking memory management into one's own hands. The current behavior seems reasonable, because 'delete' is never invoked on the object (which is necessary for a custom deallocator to be used). -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
