Re: Requesting endorsements of Boost.STLInterfaces for review

From: Rob Stewart (rstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-09-09 13:08:33

On September 9, 2019 4:08:04 AM EDT, Hans Dembinski via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> > On 23. Aug 2019, at 21:58, Zach Laine via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > 
> > As I stated previously, this discussion is thoroughly moot.  I
> > cannot do anything in a CRTP base class like
> > container_interface to help those who want to create
> > allocator-aware containers.
> > 
> > Your feelings about the allocator abstraction -- and mine as well --
> > are irrelevant to any discussion of stl_interfaces.  If you care
> > enough about this debate to start another thread,
> > I'll follow you there.
> 
> I think Andrey gave you some very good arguments and we are not
> discussing personal choices here. Allocators are part of the STL and
> Boost. You need to adhere to these design choices if you want to write
> a generic C++ component that may be part of the STL some day. That it
> is too much effort for you is not a viable argument. Your arrogant and
> dismissive attitude is not helping your cause either. You are not
> becoming a first class C++ author by rejecting good advice.

You have completely missed the point. Zach is saying there is nothing that can be done, even if he wanted to do it, because the work has to be done in the derivate.

Zach also is willing to discuss the topic, but doesn't want this thread derailed, which is perfectly reasonable.
--
Rob
(Sent from my portable computation device.)