Yes, I was going to suggest boost::allocator::monotonic, rather than boost::monotonic::allocator. More on this later. On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 5:26 AM, Ross Levine <ross.levine@uky.edu> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Simonson, Lucanus J < lucanus.j.simonson@intel.com> wrote:
I think an allocator that uses your chain buffer for storage and is safe could be a good thing. I think that the allocator can be implemented in
way that it doesn't need non-static data members. The chain is in and of itself not interesting as a replacement for deque, but as a memory buffer for a good allocator I think it could find its niche. I'd like to see
a the
memory buffer implement object deallocation and memory reuse, and perhaps thread saftey (maybe optional thread safety enabled by default). I almost coded up a proposal for such an allocator based on a deque when I last replied to you, but I see you've thought way further along those lines without my prompting.
Now that is a great idea! A boost::allocators library would be a great addition. Then everyone wins, because we could have a cross-platform stack_based_allocator and monotonic_allocator and the like. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost