Peter N Lewis wrote:

It's not worth nit picking on the list further, but I wonder if...:

...

dispose(q) shall remove the identifying-value denoted by the expression q from the pointer-type of q . It shall be an error if the identifying-value had been created using the form new(p,c l , . . .,cn).

...

NOTE -- The removal of an identifying-value from the pointer-type to which it belongs renders the identified-variable inaccessible (see 6.5.4) and makes undefined all variables and functions that have that value attributed (see 6.6.3.2 and 6.8.2.2).

"identified-variable" refers to the content, not p per se?

Note how it makes the distinction of "identifying-value" (ie the pointer?) and "identified-variable" (ie p^).

Thus p^ is inaccessible.

There is a reason I don't attempt to read standards!

It says "makes undefined all variables and functions that have that value attributed", and the "value" the speaketh of is the "identifying-value".

This is why I included the definition of:

new(p) shall create a new variable that is totally-undefined, shall create a new identifying-value of the pointer-type associated with p, that identifies the new variable, and shall attribute this identifying-value to the variable denoted by the variable-access p

Note "shall attribute this identifying-value to the variable denoted by the variable-access p"

The double speak has a purpose, and the meaning covers several storage management schemes, including references and recycling.

For reference systems, where the pointer contains not an address but a logical key to the actual variable, the "identifying-value" becomes undefined because its table entry becomes invalid. For recycling systems, the actual pointer may be set invalid.

Its an important point, because it lets the implementor implement advanced storage handling.

Scott Moore