In the 10/95 draft Box 1 in Section 18.4 suggests that nothrow ought
to be made a type rather than a value.  Has that change occurred?
And frankly the wording "type rather than value" is unclear to me.

Dr. Lawrence Miller The Aerospace Corporation
lmiller@aero.org PO Box 92957
   LA, CA 90009-2957
---
[ 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         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]

Lawrence H. Miller wrote:
>
> In the 10/95 draft Box 1 in Section 18.4 suggests that nothrow ought
> to be made a type rather than a value.  Has that change occurred?

The class nothrow has been replaced by an enumeration

  enum nothrow_t { nothrow };

so that the call is now

  new(nothrow) T;   // not new(nothrow()) T

FWIW.

Nathan Myers
ncm@cantrip.org
---
[ 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         ]
[ FAQ:      http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/faq.html    ]
[ Policy:   http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html ]
[ Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu                             ]