Full name of submitter (unless configured in github; will be published with the issue): Jiang An

Reference (section label): [temp.deduct.decl]

Link to reflector thread (if any):

Issue description:

Currently [temp.deduct.decl] p1 only mentions operator new but not operator new[]. Perhaps we should handle operator new[] consistently.

Suggested resolution:

Modify [temp.deduct.decl] p1 as indicated:

1. [...] This is also done to determine whether a deallocation function template specialization matches a placement operator new allocation function ([basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation], [expr.new]). In all these cases, P is the type of the function template being considered as a potential match and A is either the function type from the declaration or the type of the deallocation function that would match the placement operator new allocation function as described in [expr.new]. [...]

Modify [temp.func.order] p1.3 as indicated:

(1.3) - when a placement operator delete deallocation function that is a function template specialization is selected to match a placement operator new allocation function ([basic.stc.dynamic.deallocation], [expr.new]);