Lance Diduck wrote:
To all: Here is an issue that may impact stdcxx.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1850.pdf
Odd. Adobe Reader on Linux seems to have trouble with the document
-- it says it can't find Helvetica and the text is unreadable. Xpdf
opened it fine, though.
I skimmed the paper but I suspect I'll need to re-read it and spend
some time playing with the proposed classes to get a better
understanding of it. I'll try to do that before the end of the month
(i.e., before the October WG21 meeting) and post my feedback here.
This was just put up there, and written by a guy I work with Palbo
Halpern,
and is a proposal to overhaul the STL containers to take polymorphic
allocators as the default, and furthermore to pass these allocators
around
from container to container.
I don't know how the library committee reviews these proposals.
I see N1850 on the agenda for our Thursday 10/6 meeting (of the WG21
at Mont Tremblant).
However,
a
way we could promote Apache stdcxx is to offer a realistic solution,
that
operates with the Apache "Pluggable Memory" concept.
(http://xml.apache.org/xerces-c/program-others.html and
http://xml.apache.org/xalan-c/programming.html ) There is an STL
solution
that shouldn't require changes to the standard,
You mean the one that defines allocate() and deallocate() virtual?
That would be a detectable change and for some implementations also
a binary incompatible, change.
and works for all
vendors
(at least the ones that take optional allocator arguments). Using the
STL
with polymorphic allocators makes some of the interface ambiguous
however. A
more usable solution, could be an adapter that would not assume that
allocators compare equal, and enforces post-conditions (based on a
policy)
that th standard does not address.
I have a paper here
http://www.lancediduck.com/papers/Cpp/StatefulSTL.pdf
that could be the start of a doc on how to use Pluggable Memory with STL
containers.
I briefly looked at the paper a few weeks back (Ravi forwarded me
a copy) but I'm not done reviewing it yet. I'll review it before
the meeting and get back to you.
Martin
