🚀 go-pugleaf

wilson@cs.utexas.edu (Paul Wilson) wrote:
>
>My current understanding of STL allocators suggests that the standard
>is badly designed.  I'd be happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

Are you talking about:

  1) the Working Paper specification, or,
  2) The Stepanov/Lee specification?

According to the September 1995 WP, you have to pass
an allocator type argument to "list", and you have
to pass an allocator OBJECT of that type to a list.

According to Stepanov/Lee, you have to pass an allocator
TEMPLATE. [Note: pass a _template_, not a type]

>Am I mistaken that the standard STL allocator model conflicts with what
>I want to do?  Are instantiations of templates with different allocators
>different types, requiring different code to operate on them?  

  WP: no, not always (but they can be)
  Stepanov/Lee: yes, always.

>I suppose
>we could write all of our code as template functions and generate two
>versions of everything, but that's ugly and not a complete solution.

I don't understand: generally you WILL be writing almost all
modern C++ code as templates.

--
John Max Skaller               voice: 61-2-566-2189
81 Glebe Point Rd              fax:   61-2-660-0850
GLEBE NSW 2037                 email: maxtal@suphys.physics.oz.au
AUSTRALIA                      email: skaller@maxtal.com.au
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]