From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-10 15:35:06
From: "Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden]>
> "Rob Stewart" wrote:
> >> > 1. Creator policy is redundant with the standard Allocator concept, I
> >> > think. Though the standard Allocator concept has some subtle, tricky
> >> > semantics, I think it's nevertheless worth using: that would permit
> >> > interoperability with existing allocator implementations.
> >> >
> >> Thinking it again: you are likely right here.
> >> Handling of constructor arguments could be separated
> >> from allocation.
> > I don't know about that, but perhaps an adapter could be provided
> > to make a standard allocator look like a creator?
> I should be possible w/o adapter. Just expecting std::allocator like
> parameter in template.
That's only true if you separate the construction functionality
from the allocation. If you can't for some reason (I haven't
looked to see whether it is possible), an adapter can rely on the
allocator for its memory management.
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk