Re: [boost] Proposal: Monotonic Containers

Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal: Monotonic Containers
From: David Bergman (David.Bergman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-17 17:32:56

On Jun 17, 2009, at 5:11 PM, Christian Schladetsch wrote:

> Hi Ross,
>
> Agreed. Christian hasn't posted any results for pool_allocator and
>> fast_pool_allocator either.
>
>
> I agree that I should do this and I shall. However, it should also  
> be clear
> that these other allocators are specific to a given type T. Monotonic
> allocation is available to any type, and from any set of containers,  
> from
> the same single storage buffer, which can be on the stack, on the  
> heap, or
> spanning both.
>
>
>> I am also tired of the complete lack of understanding of what is  
>> and is not
>> defined in the standard.
>
>
> I have been completely aware of the standard from the start. My
> documentation references it, I talk about the issue of non-static  
> data in an
> allocator there. I have always understood that the standard states  
> that
> allocators of the same type may be considered isomorphic by a given  
> STL
> implementation. All I have ever said is that the standard does not  
> say that
> an allocator may not have non-static data.
>
> I'll repeat that, because there seems to be some confusion. All I  
> have ever
> said is that the standard does not say that an allocator cannot have
> non-static data. The standard states that a STL implementation may  
> treat
> allocators of the same type as being all equivalent.
>
> I can't help thinking that there is a case here of people cutting  
> off their
> noses to spite their faces.
[snip]

Yes, it is not easy for a rational, calm and experienced developer to  
come with a solid proposal to all these hot-headed and self- 
destructive people...

/David