Re: [boost] Proposal: Monotonic Containers

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal: Monotonic Containers
From: Andrew Sutton (andrew.n.sutton_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-09 09:07:20

>
> STL isn't rapidly changed.

That may be the understatement of the year :)

> People will expect that a monotonic::foo<..> is like a foo<..>, and they
> will accept that it requires a storage argument. But they will find it
> harder to accept that it requires retooling from a type-argument level of
> the allocator.
>

Why incur the overhead of expectation, when foo<T, monotonic::allocator<T>>
gives you exactly what you want?

Andrew Sutton
andrew.n.sutton_at_[hidden]