From: Charles Terry <cterry AT plinet DOT com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: bad_alloc exception
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 1998 06:31:47 -0800
Organization: All USENET -- http://www.Supernews.com
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <35224FD3.727E@plinet.com>
References: <199804010554 DOT VAA22685 AT adit DOT ap DOT net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 6540 AT 207 DOT 174 DOT 3 DOT 153
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Precedence: bulk

Nate Eldredge wrote:
> 
> At 10:26  3/29/1998 -0800, Charles Terry wrote:
> >Michael Krause wrote:
> >>
> >> Is there anyway to get the new operator to throw a bad_alloc exception
> >> instead of just returning zero?
> >>
> >> Mike Krause
> >> mhkrause AT umich DOT edu
> >yes but you will have to download the source code and
> >modify the new function and recompile.
> 
> I don't think that's necessary, is it? My C++ knowledge is minimal, but I'm
> pretty sure one of its major features is the ability to define your own
> versions of operators. This can be done without tampering at all with the
> library sources.
> 
> Nate Eldredge
> eldredge AT ap DOT net
Yea that is how it works, I think SET also pointed that out.
I do use c++ a bit but never had occasion to overload the standard
operators- just class operators.  But my impression was that to
overload it had to be datatype::new(sizeof(datatype)).
In otherwords the operator overloaded for a specific type.
I agree recompileing the library is not neccesary but
I'd still look at the library code to make sure I wasn't missing
anything that could (and probably would) come back to haunt me.

Charles