{"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/boostorg/serialization/comments/19833015","html_url":"https://github.com/boostorg/serialization/commit/69ecae6919b417be2b2558aefffea97fbe50d4a8#commitcomment-19833015","id":19833015,"user":{"login":"qingl97","id":6275897,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/6275897?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/qingl97","html_url":"https://github.com/qingl97","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/qingl97/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/qingl97/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/qingl97/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/qingl97/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/qingl97/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/qingl97/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/qingl97/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/qingl97/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/qingl97/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"position":null,"line":null,"path":null,"commit_id":"69ecae6919b417be2b2558aefffea97fbe50d4a8","created_at":"2016-11-15T18:01:57Z","updated_at":"2016-11-15T18:01:57Z","body":"Why changed `(operator delete)(t);` to `delete t;` in struct `doesnt_have_new_operator` ? \r\n\r\nIf I understand correctly, the purpose of the function `invoke_delete(T* t)` should stay coped with that of `invoke_new()` which only allocates the memory, without calling the constructor in the case of no new operator defined. Keeping `(operator delete)(t);`  seems to be more reasonable as `delete t;` will also call the constructor. \r\n\r\nOne of the application I am working on currently uses boost 1.56.0. During the migration to boost 1.61.0 we encountered a compilation error saying that the protected destructor of one Mix-in class can't be accessed, which do only reference counting staff. Error occurred from that line 246 in boost 1.61.0. I can't figure out the purpose of this changement here.\r\n\r\nLooking forward for the reply. "}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"qingl97"}}