can you motivate why the proposal are adding a new set of containers instead
of only an allocator to be used with the standard containers?
Because the container constructors need to be passed the storage. The container implementations are trivial.
I think you can omit the containers if you just expect the programmer to explicitly construct the them over the storage_base. For example (I'm abbreviating monotonic): typedef std::vector<T, mono::allocator<T> > Vector; Vector v(mono::allocator<T>(store)); It' may appear be as graceful, but it doesn't require the duplication of classes, which can be harmful. There are libraries in Boost that specialize (templates) on containers types, and new containers would likely fail the specializations. Andrew Sutton andrew.n.sutton@gmail.com