From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-01 15:48:43
Gregory Colvin <gregory.colvin_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> Conforming containers had better use them.
>> I'm sorry, but I think that's flat wrong. What do you suppose that
>> entry in column 2 of the allocator requirements table (20.1.5) means,
>> after all?
> It means any value returned by construct, destroy, or deallocate goes
>>> And once you are down in the coal mine customizing what a pointer
>>> is, I'm not sure you won't need to customize how to construct and
>> The class getting constructed/destroyed has full control over that or
>> the language is utterly bustificated.
> Yes, but the allocator may want to do something else as well, and
> construct and destroy serve as hooks for whatever that may be.
Regardless, there is absolutely _nothing_ in the standard AFAICT which
indicates the containers must use the allocator's construct and
destroy, and several implementations in fact do not.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk