I agree, it does sound like a job for a Policy whatsit. If I get a chance I could try a few things and see if anything works out and let you know. Although, if time constraints work out the way I think they will, I might have to stick with a cut&paste solution! Kevin\ -----Original Message----- From: scleary@jerviswebb.com [mailto:scleary@jerviswebb.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 5:13 AM To: Boost-Users@yahoogroups.com Cc: shammah@voyager.net Subject: [Boost-Users] RE: object_pool, O(N) destroy?

-----Original Message----- From: hicks [mailto:hicks@kgk.co.jp]

It sounds like a case where a type trait, identifying the need for the pool to responsible for deletion, would be appropriate. Then objects which did not need to be destroyed (e.g. ptrs, "plain" structs) could be handled by optimized code. But that's more work than cut and paste.

Actually, the difference is in how the pool is used, not on the type of object being allocated. So it sounds more like a case for a policy-based design. Too bad, I just don't have time to do that right now... :( -Steve Info: http://www.boost.org Wiki: http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl Unsubscribe: mailto:boost-users-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/