A nonnewable class

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-21 18:44:14

Should we have a "nonnewable" class?  It is similar to noncopyable, but it
bans new and delete instead.  Here's a quick mock-up:

//==========================================================================
namespace boost
{
    //...

    class nonnewable
    {
    protected:
        nonnewable()    {}
        ~nonnewable()   {}  // should this be virtual?

    private:
        void *  operator new( std::size_t );
        void    operator delete( void *, std::size_t );
        void *  operator new[]( std::size_t );
        void    operator delete[]( void *, std::size_t );
    };

    //...
}
//==========================================================================

Would this prevent someone from creating an object of this class
dynamically?  Which header should this class go into (maybe "utility.hpp")?
Can anyone come up with a better name?  I heard that some compilers can't
currently handle the array operators above, should we add a Boost #define to
block those operators, and what should they be called?

--