Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Heaps
From: Tim Blechmann (tim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-02 04:17:09

> >>> one could use a `container' argument similar to the std::priority_queue
> >>> ... but i somehow like the way to pass the allocator as template
> >>> argument (mainly for consistency among the different heaps) ... but of
> >>> course, it would be possible to catch this at compile time ... so that
> >>> either a container or an allocator is passed, but not both ...
> >>
> >> Passing an allocator is not near as powerful a feature as passing the
> >> container.
> >
> > nope ... but i would like to ensure the API consistency between
> > node-based heaps and container-adaptors
> Why? This is not exactly the same as defining a generic algorithm
> in terms of iterators. Lots of containers have different number of
> template arguments. I fail to see what benefits this "consistency"
> gives us.

a user who wants to find the best implementation for a specific application can
simply replace the name ... my proposal above would imply that either a
container or an allocator can be specified: give an allocator if you just want
to use a custom allocator (consistent among all heaps) or give a container if
you want to specify a custom container (consistent among container adaptors).

whats wrong with this approach?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at