From: Joerg Walter (jhr.walter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-27 16:46:06
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregory Colvin" <gregory.colvin_at_[hidden]>
To: "Boost mailing list" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: what happened to allocators in boost?
> On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 14:46 America/Denver, Joerg Walter wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gregory Colvin" <gregory.colvin_at_[hidden]>
> >>> BTW:
> >>> I'd a bit suprised if the C++ committe
> >>> accepts Boost memory management concept
> >>> (or a complete lack of such) as
> >>> an industry standard.
> >> It already has:
> >> http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/library_technical_report.html
> > What a mistake?
> I don't think so. As Dave said, there are already existing library
> components whose use of dynamic memory is not parameterized.
But these could be bad, too.
> So I
> can't see refusing new components on that basis.
> That doesn't mean Boost shouldn't have a more explicit policy, but
> I doubt that simply parameterizing everything with an allocator is
> the way to go.
OK. But you're discussing a theme similar to the ones leading to EC++ as far
as I understood.
> It also doesn't mean the standard shouldn't have a more explicit
> policy, but achieving one will be non-trivial.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk