Benedek Thaler wrote:
I'd like to avoid having too many policies. One could argue, that the chosen size type limits the maximum growth, thus it fits into the concept of the GrowthPolicy. I'll think on it.
Sounds good.
It looks like the container uses allocator<X>, but really, it uses allocator<Y>, which is not nice. Or maybe it's just me being too strict.
I'm also undecided: - On the one hand, requiring that explicit specification of allocator type whose value_type matches the desired value_type is nice. - On the other, it's a little repetitive: we already specify value_type in the parameter list, and every allocator type provides a mechanism to rebind for a given value_type. It may also feel a little inconsistent: e.g. with Clang/libc++ the above example with std::vector static_asserts, yet { std::list<int, std::allocator<void>
l; l.push_back(1); } will compile fine.
Unfortunately, I have no benchmarks to prove it, yet.
Benchmarks comparing against std::vector would be nice to have (whenever you have time). Best, Glen