deprecated delete and manual memory management

[so]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:01:58 +0300, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> Am 26.04.2011 21:48, schrieb Benjamin Thaut:
>> Am 26.04.2011 21:26, schrieb Daniel Gibson:
>>> Am 26.04.2011 20:23, schrieb Steven Schveighoffer:
>>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:14:11 -0400, Benjamin Thaut
>>>> <code at benjamin-thaut.de>  wrote:
>>>>> Could someone please write a small example how manual memory
>>>>> management would look without new / delete?
>>>>
>>>> I think that is a good idea.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not a tutorial, just a simple example using C malloc/free:
>>> http://pastebin.com/HSBrk5kA
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> - Daniel
>>
>> Thanks for the example, thats exactly what I needed.
>>
>> I still don't understand why the delete operator is deprecated
>> completely. It could be defined, that it is only useable if the new and
>> delete operator have been overloaded in the class or struct that is
>> tried to be deleted.
>>
>
> This way it's much more flexible. Note that you don't have to change the
> classes at all (i.e. you don't have to provide new() and delete()) to
> use a custom allocator. This means
> 1. you can use custom allocators with classes you didn't write yourself
> 2. you can even use different custom allocators for the same class at
> the same time (you'd have to be really careful not to screw that up by
> using the wrong deallocator for an Object)
> 3. you only have to write an (de)allocator once and you can use it for
> any class, even if they're not derived from each other
>
> Also, and I think this is really a great feature for performance that
> isn't available with overloaded new and delete operators, you can create
> an array of objects that really lie next to each other in memory (like
> an array of structs), so you can benefit from CPU cache effects.
>
> This is a very simple example doing that: http://pastebin.com/98mGU7y1
> However you have to be careful with it if, i.e. don't put new objects in
> it, don't slice it (you have to at least feed the original array to
> myDeleteArr()) etc.
> To really use something like this probably a struct that enforces this
> (by conservatively overloading opIndex, opAssign etc) would be better
> than a function returning a dynamic array that happens to point to
> objects that are adjacent in memory.
>
> Cheers,
> - Daniel

Those that come from other languages (and D1), come with some baggage, it  
is strange not being able to see the huge advantages over new/delete  
operators. I agree with others, we need the best documentation we can get  
on this subject.

A challenge.
Write a "new" wrapper (lets call it "mynew") that logs each allocation  
(without preprocessor magic and C++0x).

D:
T mynew(T, A...)(A a) {
	printf("hello");
//	return new T(a);
	return new!T(a);
}

Any takers for the C++ version?

Daniel, you could have named them new and delete then everyone would be  
happy!