[expr.new], [class.free] Remove "free store" from the index

[frederick-vs-ja]

As we have already indexed class-specific allocation and deallocation functions, it is perhaps fine to remove "free store".

[Eisenwave]

This doesn't preserve the meaning of the original wording, which describes features that C++ has beyond C. C also has allocation and deallocation functions (malloc and free).

If we said replaceable or class-specific allocation functions, that would be a beyond-C feature.

[jwakely]

Or just keep the word operators, since that's what it originally said, and C doesn't have those. The operators construct and destroy objects instead of just allocating. C doesn't have that (just calloc which doesn't work for non-trivial types).

[frederick-vs-ja]

This doesn't preserve the meaning of the original wording, which describes features that C++ has beyond C. C also has allocation and deallocation functions (malloc and free).

In the C++ standard wording, allocation and deallocation functions are operator new/operator new[] and operator delete/operator delete[] but not other functions. But such meaning seems confusing in more general contexts.

I'm now using "allocation and deallocation operator functions", as these functions are also operator functions ([over.oper.general]/1) and operator functions are clearly beyond C.

[frederick-vs-ja]

Or just keep the word operators, since that's what it originally said, and C doesn't have those. The operators construct and destroy objects instead of just allocating. C doesn't have that (just calloc which doesn't work for non-trivial types).

Hmm, however, as you said here, the new and delete operators are more than "free store management" which seemingly just refers to allocating and deallocating. The original meaning is unclear to me.

An early draft seemingly indicated that free storage management operators are allocation and deallocation functions (in Clause 12).

[tkoeppe]

@jwakely, @jensmaurer Thoughts on "allocation operator functions"?

[jensmaurer]

We never call those "allocation operator functions". They're just "allocation functions". Also, the original wording talks about "free store management operators", which is something like "new T" (allocates and constructs), whereas allocation functions just allocate raw bytes --- and C has those, too, sort-of.

I think "free store management operators" is good enough for this intro paragraph.

[tkoeppe]

Thanks, Jens, agreed!

[frederick-vs-ja]

But if we keep using "free store management operators", #5558 and #7040 won't be addressed, as it will be still unclear what free store is.

[jensmaurer]

@tkoeppe , my comment was applying to a single use of "free store"; there are other replaced uses that might be fine (I haven't looked). Closing this pull request based on a single bad change feels over-the-top.

[tkoeppe]

The rest is just indexing I think, but sure.

[jensmaurer]

Ah, right, the rest is just indexing indeed. And we do want to have "foreign" phrases in the index in case people go looking for them, so that we can direct them to "our" world.

Apologies.