Eliminate class allocators and deallocators?

[Christopher Wright]

What exactly is your suggestion?

It seems that you mean that:
delete obj;

should call a destructor but not call delete() or notify the GC that the 
memory is free.

You're saying that there is a problem, but you're not telling us what's 
wrong. Why the hell do you want to destroy an object without recycling 
its memory? Why does the inability to do so cause a problem?

It seems like a performance hack to me -- you've got an object that 
isn't valid anymore, but you want to hang on to the memory for some 
other purpose. And you could override new() and delete(), but you don't 
want to incur the performance penalty of calling the runtime to fetch 
the deallocator.

The only remaining use that I see is a way to reset a shared object 
without explicitly passing around a reference to the new version of the 
object. This seems potentially dangerous, and nothing I want for default 
behavior.