Joe Buck writes:
>If a check were to be implemented, the right thing to do would be to throw
>bad_alloc (for the default new) or return 0 (for the nothrow new).
Ross Ridge writes:
>What do you do if the user has defined his own operator new that does
>something else?
Gabriel Dos Reis writes:
>More precisely?
Well, for example, like all other things that a new_handler can do,
like throwing an exception derived from bad_alloc or calling exit().
In addition, any number of side effects are possible, like printing
error messages or setting flags.
>Those programs willing to do anything to avoid imagined or perceived
>"excessive code size growth" may use the suggested switch.
The code size growth would be real, and there are enough applications
out there that would consider any unnecessary growth in code excessive.
The switch would be required both for that reason, and for Standard
conformance.
Ross Ridge
