From: Zach Laine (whatwasthataddress_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-09-09 18:41:03
On Mon, Sep 9, 2019 at 6:13 AM Rob Stewart via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> On September 9, 2019 4:08:04 AM EDT, Hans Dembinski via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > 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.
Thanks, Rob. That's it exactly. It's not that allocator support is too
hard, it's that it cannot be done with a CRTP adaptor.
And I'm not trying to be rude, just trying to keep the thread focused.
Email after does not convey tone of voice, after all. If I came off as
rude or dismissive, I apologize. That was never my intention.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk