Hi Ion, Thanks for the input. It certainly doesn't hurt to respect allocator typedefs and use the construct() member as intended. It just seems that Google doesn't realize this yet :) However I did manage to find this: http://www.cuj.com/documents/s=8000/cujcexp1812austern It seems like using allocators properly does impose some real design decisions and restrictions. I think I'll study the Dinkumware STL implementation (and also the Boost Graph Library) to see what they do, since as far as I can tell, my code here is illegal: class node_t; typedef typename A::template rebind<node_t>::other node_allocator; typedef typename node_allocator::value_type node; typedef typename node_allocator::pointer node_pointer; class node_t { pointer t_; node_pointer parent_; // etc. }; because I'm instantiating node_allocator with an incomplete type. Such a strange dance this is. Thanks again, dr On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:02:10 +0100, Ion Gaztañaga <ion_g_m@terra.es> wrote:
In my opinion, since it does not hurt, if you respect allocator typedefs and functions, you can get some advantages.