Andrew Sutton escribió:
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));
I concur. Also, replicating container classes for the sake of avoiding this little boilerplate code is a maintenance bottleneck. (Besides, the adapted container classes as they're presented are missing losts of variant constructors). Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo