Re: [boost] Proposal: Monotonic Containers

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal: Monotonic Containers
From: joaquin_at_[hidden]
Date: 2009-06-09 08:22:36

Andrew Sutton escribió:
>> can you motivate why the proposal are adding a new set of containers
>> instead
>>     
>>> of only an allocator to be used with the standard containers?
>>>       
>> Because the container constructors need to be passed the storage. The
>> container implementations are trivial.
>>
>>     
>
> I think you can omit the containers if you just expect the programmer to
> explicitly construct the them over the storage_base. For example (I'm
> abbreviating monotonic):
>
> typedef std::vector<T, mono::allocator<T> > Vector;
> Vector v(mono::allocator<T>(store));
>   

I concur. Also, replicating container classes for the sake of avoiding 
this little
boilerplate code is a maintenance bottleneck.

(Besides, the adapted container classes as they're presented are missing
losts of variant constructors).

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo