Re: [Boost-users] Request for an addition in Boost Coding standard

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Request for an addition in Boost Coding standard
From: Matt Calabrese (rivorus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-16 13:32:18

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 3:55 AM, <Viatcheslav.Sysoltsev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, and I would like to fine override some libc functions for just some
> classes: maybe all boost functions should have all possible libc function
> pointers as optional parameters? Just accept you're trying to do something
> unordinary, which is not worthy to support generally. IMO of course. Try to
> implement what you need through compiler support or some cunny
> compiler/linker tricks.
>

No need for the sarcasm here. His suggestion really was not odd at all. As
for having such requirements as a part of required boost coding standards, I
don't think that's necessary as it should be handled on a library-by-library
basis (speak up during review if you have a strong opinion on it). For
specific, accepted libraries for which you feel the need for such behavior,
you should talk to the library maintainer. Having control over allocators is
a very reasonable request.

-- 
-Matt Calabrese