Stewart, Robert escribió:
Andrew Sutton wrote: On Tuesday, June 09, 2009 9:07 AM
People will expect that a monotonic::foo<..> is like a foo<..>, and they will accept that it requires a storage argument. But they will find it harder to accept that it requires retooling from a type-argument level of the allocator.
Why incur the overhead of expectation, when foo<T, monotonic::allocator<T>> gives you exactly what you want?
There's a problem with using an allocator for the node based containers: they use the allocator to allocate the elements but not the nodes. That implies free store (de)allocations for the nodes which is contrary to the intended purpose of this proposal.
Umm, I beg to differ. If we have a node-based container xxx<T,...,custom_allocator<T> > and node<T> is the internal node type, the container is required to do the allocation using an allocator of type custom_allocator<T>::rebind<node<T> >::other. The container is not allowed to do any kind of allocation using other means than the custom_allocator<X> family of allocators. Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo