On Tuesday 26 August 2003 01:23 pm, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Leaving aside the issue of whether specializing std::allocator<MyClass> is
> a good idea:
>
> shared_ptr< MyClass, MyAllocator > s;
>
> note that you now wouldn't be able to pass s to a function that expects
> shared_ptr<MyClass> since the type is not the same.
There's no reason shared_ptr couldn't support a constructor that takes an
allocator as an argument. Then sp_counted_base_impl would also take an
Allocator parameter (heh, the allocator it was in fact allocated with) and
would know how to deallocate itself via a (copy of) this allocator. We'd get
allocator support without putting the allocator into the type of shared_ptr
(just like we have deleter support).
Doug
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
