From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-16 14:31:59
At 02:54 PM 7/16/2001, Corwin Joy wrote:
>> This is a reasonable consideration and has been mentioned before on
>> list, but if I were to introduce it I would need to be convinced that
>> is both effective and genuinely desirable, given the tradeoffs it
>> introduces -- it is not, by definition, an "upgrade".
>And what exactly is the "downside" of providing a template parameter to
>an allocator. It seems relatively easy to add & I don't see how it would
>degrade the existing functionality or performance of any.
Allocators have been a disappointment. I'll guess that if the library
working group were to do it over again, there would be quite a few people
arguing for no allocators parameters in the standard library
containers. Every addition parameter (when as complex a concept as
allocators) adds to user confusion. One alternative is to just let the
implementations do the right thing. The other is to fix allocators.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk