Re: [boost] Proposal: Monotonic Containers

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal: Monotonic Containers
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-09 09:27:03

Andrew Sutton wrote:
On Tuesday, June 09, 2009 9:07 AM
>
> > 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?

There's a problem with using an allocator for the node based containers: they use the allocator to allocate the elements but not the nodes.  That implies free store (de)allocations for the nodes which is contrary to the intended purpose of this proposal.

_____
Rob Stewart                           robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software      using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  http://www.sig.com

IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.