Gregory Colvin wrote: > > You are assuming that there was no good reason to allow an allocator > to hook construct and destroy, for instance to do some bookkeeping.
I'm curious. Have you ever seen such an allocator? I've always assumed that construct/destroy/pointer are a "but someone might need to do that" feature that nobody has ever used. Then again, the Dinkumware implementation dutifully calls construct and destroy, paying (and forcing me to pay) the abstraction penalty price... so maybe I'm wrong, and construct/destroy are useful? _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
