Eliminate "new" for class object creation?

[Pelle Månsson]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Max Samukha wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:12:39 +0800, Lionello Lunesu
>> <lio at lunesu.remove.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20-10-2009 6:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
>>>> you guys think?
>>> I don't agree with this one.
>>>
>>> There's extra cost involved, and the added keyword makes that clear. 
>>> Also, somebody mentioned using 'new' to allocate structs on the heap; 
>>> I've never actually done that, but it sounds like using 'new' would 
>>> be the perfect way to do just that.
>>>
>>> L.
>>
>> I don't think the extra cost should be emphasized with 'new' every
>> time you instantiate a class. For example, in C#, they use 'new' for
>> creating structs on stack (apparently to make them consistent with
>> classes, in a silly way).
>>
>> I think the rarer cases when a class instance is allocated in-place (a
>> struct on heap) can be handled by the library.
>>
>> BTW, why "in-situ" is better in this context than the more common
>> "in-place"? Would be nice to know.
> 
> The term originated with this:
> 
> class A {
>     InSitu!B b;
>     ...
> }
> 
> meaning that B is embedded inside A. But I guess InPlace is just as good.
> 
> 
> Andrei

I actually do not understand what InSitu is supposed to mean.

I like the name Scope, but InPlace works for me.