Ah, right. I was looking at part of the code where the allocator > wasn't being passed on, but of course that part of the code didn't > need to do any allocation. Two comments:> > (1) Often, one inherits from the allocator rather than storing it > in a member. That way, if the allocator type is empty, we don't need > to use up any storage.

Oh sure. What was I thinking? I'll fix this tomorrow. :)

(2) Visual C++ strikes again: we'll have to #ifdef out these > allocator versions for Microsoft's compiler prior to version 7.1, > both because of the reliance on partial specialization of class > templates and because of the use of rebind.

I haven't been using older MSVC compilers ever since they released 7.0, and I don't have a 6.0 handy at the moment. If I remember correctly, member function templates don't work on 6.0 so I guess you're right, all the allocator stuff will have to be ifdef'd out. Emil Dotchevski _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and much more! Check out the New MSN Mobile! http://mobile.msn.com