Re: [boost] Re: "any" suggestions

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 
this
 >> list, but if I were to introduce it I would need to be convinced that 
it
 >> 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
 >take
 >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.

--Beman