[boost] Re: Boost memory management guidelines

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-30 14:20:37

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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.

It seems to me that class templates which only need to allocate at
construction time shouldn't take type parameters which specify
allocation, but should instead take argument objects.  The rest
probably should use type parameters.  Which category does function
fall into?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com