I agree with Brian that a change of this magnitude would need significantly more justification than “make delete easier”, but more over I am unsure how an unkinded delete would work. It’s necessary to know if you’re deleting an array vs a single allocation for myriad reasons.

> On Jul 1, 2025, at 8:26 AM, Henning Meyer via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I think there was an (unavoidable) missed opportunity in C++98 when new[] and delete[] were introduced.
>
> What we have currently is unchanged since 1998 and very C:
>
> new std::string[8] returns an object of type std::string*. It is indistinguishable in its type from the result of new std::string.
>
> When you free it, you must remember that it was allocated via new[] and pass it into delete[] instead of delete.
> Calling delete instead of delete[] is undefined behavior and may lead to crashes in practice not just memory leaks.
>
> Instead, we could have the following:
>
> new T[n] returns an object of type T[],
>
> we can declare variables of type T[], they have a representation identical to T*
>
> objects of type T[] decay to T* similar to array decay,
>
> delete p has the behavior of delete[] when p is of type T[].
>
> This would represent the difference in the type system and not just in the logic within functions.
>
>
> I think the state of T[] is very odd in the current language:
>
> variables cannot be declared:
>
> int p[]; // will not compile
>
> struct members can be declared, but this is C (flexible array members) and not allowed in strict C++
>
> struct S {
>
> int p[];
>
> };
>
> There are headers written in C that use use this syntax, and these won't change to not break existing code.
>
> Function parameters can be declared, but is no different from declaring a pointer
>
> void fun(int p[]); is the same as void fun(int* p);
>
> As far as I can tell, T[] in C++ is mostly used in specializations of templates like std::unique_ptr<T[]> which is essentially syntactic sugar over std::unique_ptr<T,array_deleter<T>>, as an array without bound T[] cannot be meaningfully used in the current language.
>
> I think the C++ language rules can be amended to allow T[] to represent T* allocated by new[] and backwards compatibility with C headers can preserved by disallowing this construct within extern "C" constructs.
>
> Of course, it is easy to imagine generic C++ code that breaks when the expression new[] returns a type that decays to T* instead of T*.
> Whether that is relevant in practice can only be determined by implementing the proposed changes in a compiler.
>
> I just thought I ask whether I am the only one who thinks this might be a good idea before (asking for help) implementing this in a branch of GCC or LLVM.
>
> Regards,
> Henning
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals