IMHO the last two lines of the table 32 have surprising
effects, could be typos.

Prerequisits:
  alloc<T>             a     ;// an allocator for T
  alloc<T>::pointer    p     ;// random access iterator
                              // (may be different from T*)
  alloc<T>::reference  r = *p;// T&
  T&                   t     ;

Table 32:
  a.construct(p,t)   Effect: new((void*)p) T(t)
  a.destroy(p)       Effect: ((T*)p)   ->~T()

This would require then a user-defined conversion to T*
for all alloc<T>::pointer, and new might involve
T::operator new(..).

Is this interpretation correct and intended ?

I had expected simpler effects like ...
  ::new ((void*)&*p) T(t)
  p->~T() <=> (*p).~T() <=> (&*p)->~T()


Thanks,
Markus.

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]