From: E. Gladyshev (egladysh_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-26 16:49:54
--- Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> E. Gladyshev wrote:
> > --- Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> unless there are very solid reasons for the allocator parameter. ;-)
> > I agree, but the problme is that I don't know whether I have a solid
> reason or not.
> > I have to ship my class to someone else. She might have a solid reason, I
> don't know.
> > If I supply an allocator parameter, then I am covered and I can sleep
> well. :)
> Well... if you ask me, it is better to not offer the functionality until
> someone explicitly asks for it and gives a reasonable scenario as an
> example. Features are easy to add, hard to remove, and there is always the
> possibility that you "pre-included" the wrong feature.
Ok, I'll let my users know who is to blame. :)
I agree, if I am to use boost, providing an allocator parameter doesn't make much sense.
shared_ptr news the ref counter and in general, boost doesn't allow a full memory management
I agree that the STL allocators may not be the answer but then, what is. Counting on the standard
allocator is certainly not an answer either.
I am afraid that some of the boost libraries (as they are now) won't work for a big group of real
time and embedded developers, where customization is the key.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk