From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-25 08:07:51
Nicola Musatti wrote:
> I don't have a strong opinion in either direction, but I do feel that
> it
> is important that this is thought over. Overloading checked_delete()
> on purpose in a user defined namespace might be considered a way to
> provide
> a smart pointer with a custom deleter. Is this really something bad?
No, this is not inherently bad per se. It's just not what checked_deleter is
supposed to do, according to its current specification. It is documented to
invoke "delete p", not to call checked_delete. It is an implementation
detail (having something to do with HP aCC if I recall correctly but I may
be wrong) that checked_deleter is implemented in terms of checked_delete.