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

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Request for an addition in Boost Coding standard
From: Gokulakannan Somasundaram (gokul007_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-06-17 07:37:19

On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Daniel James <dnljms_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
> That isn't true. Correctly supporting allocators is more difficult
> than normal memory management since they can use custom pointers and
> C++03 allocators were poorly specified. C++11 is a lot better in this
> regard, but support isn't wide spread enough.
>
> Supporting allocators also makes your templates more complicated,
> resulting in worse error message, longer compile times and an
> increased testing burden. It also reduces the code that you can
> separately compile, since things that weren't templates have to become
> templates in order to support allocators.
>
> Hmmm..  may be i am ignorant here. But here we are referring to classes
which contain containers like string and vector and deque. So if the vector,
deque and string are already supporting allocators, then what extra testing
might be required for boost libraries ( say boost::format /
boost::filesystem )? If we are talking about a container and if we are
saying that it won't support allocators, then that's a different stuff.

May be i am missing something.

Thanks...