Re: [boost] Library proposal: box

From: joel falcou (joel.falcou_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-07 04:10:59

Some remarks and questions :

> 3) In general box aims to be
as simple as possible, sticking
> with fixed size containers and
no container copying.
Then why not enforcing this by having the size
passed as a template parameters ?

> A) Allocators are a
complex and often misunderstood type, and it is
> not felt it
makes things easier for users to give a different allocator to
>
vector as opposed to defining a new class.
I don't think exposing
such low level behavior (alloca calls and such) is a good
call
either. An allocator definition helper class is maybe best suited then.
What if i want a std::list or some other complex data structure using
alloca ? 
I will still be forced to write an allocator and not using
box.

> In particular, getting correct behaviour for the copy
constructors of
> the container is difficult, and it is not
possible to give a correct
> definition of max_size, which is more
important for small-sized
> containers.
Why exactly ?