Why no pool allocator for shared_ptrs?

From: AlisdairM (AlisdairM_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-03 17:05:34

I firmly believe "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and repeated use of
shared_ptr has proven it stable for our needs.

Yet every time I read about pool/small object allocators, the reference
count of the shared_ptr libraries screams out as a classic example, if an
int is not a small object, what is?!

Is there any reason not to investigate this for boost?  Or has this already
been evaluated and rejected?

AlisdairM