Re: [boost] Boost memory management guidelines

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-30 13:46:34

Gregory Colvin wrote:
> On Saturday, Aug 30, 2003, at 07:31 America/Denver, Peter Dimov wrote:
>
>> Extending this already overstretched concept to function<> is a bad
>> idea IMHO.
>
> I don't know enough about function<> to have an opinion, but it may
> well fall under the "clear advantage" escape clause.

I mention function<> because this was what started the thread, after all.
The formal proposal has an allocator template parameter but its semantics
are un(der)specified, and one possible course of action is simply to remove
the template parameter. This still leaves the door open to a constructor
taking an allocator, whether enshrined in the standard or as a (conforming)
extension.