Re: [boost] Proposal: Extended Allocators (was Montonic Containers)

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal: Extended Allocators (was Montonic Containers)
From: Scott McMurray (me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-09 22:18:27

2009/6/9 Christopher Jefferson <chris_at_[hidden]>:
>
> I have been working around this by implementing new special containers,
> which know about the size of a fixed buffer and therefore can make use of
> the space. I now think I'm probably going about this the wrong way, a much
> better way would be to implement:
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2006/n2045.html%c2 , or a
> variant thereof.
>
> The big problem with doing this "within boost" is that it would pull in a
> basically complete implementation of std::allocator and the containers into
> boost.
>

Are you sure that you're not just trying to make something like an
intrusive::vector?

The analogy is obviously imperfect, as the existing intrusive
containers are all node-based, but the advantages you mention fit very
will with those described here:
http://www.boost.org/doc/html/intrusive/intrusive_vs_nontrusive.html

Intrusive, is, in a way, the "complete implementation" of containers
that you mention, and fits very nicely with the idea of a less
convenient interface for particularly space-/performance-sensitive
users.