"William E. Kempf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No, I was asking anyone interested in responding, and you're certainly > not wasting your breath. I think I reached a compromise on these > issues/questions, and would appreciate your response (it's in another > post).
Done. >> Allocation can be pretty darned efficient when it matters. See my >> fast smart pointer allocator that Peter added to shared_ptr for >> example. > > It's not just the efficiencies that concern me with dynamic > allocation. It's the additional points of failure that occur in this > case as well. For instance, check out the article on embedded coding > in the most recent CUJ (sorry, don't have the exact title handy). > Embedded folks generally avoid dynamic memory when ever possible, so > I'm a little uncomfortable with a solution that mandates that the > implementation use dynamic allocation of memory. At least, if that's > the only solution provided. "What Peter said." -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
