"Andrei Alexandrescu" <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message news:i1inhi$2fo...@digitalmars.com... > On 07/13/2010 04:42 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:33:20 +0300, bearophile >> <bearophileh...@lycos.com> wrote: >> >>> Vladimir Panteleev: >>>> ARGHARGHARGH >>> >>> There is emplace() now. I don't know how much good it currently is. >> >> I know that I can do this manually in other ways, the problem is that >> this creates verbose and unintuitive code. > > I agree. I think we should, again, define two primitives: > > T* malloc(T, A...)(A args) if (!is(T == class) && !isDynamicArray!T); > T malloc(T, A...)(A args) if (is(T == class) || isDynamicArray!T); > free(T)(ref T obj); > > The first two call C's malloc, constructor (if any), and returns the > allocated object. The last calls the destructor (if any) and then free(). > > worksforyou? >
I think I'm missing something. Instead of regressing back to malloc & co., why not just have the custom allocators?
