Gregory Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Conforming containers had better use them. >> >> I'm sorry, but I think that's flat wrong. What do you suppose that >> entry in column 2 of the allocator requirements table (20.1.5) means, >> after all? > > It means any value returned by construct, destroy, or deallocate goes > unused. > >>> And once you are down in the coal mine customizing what a pointer >>> is, I'm not sure you won't need to customize how to construct and >>> destroy. >> >> The class getting constructed/destroyed has full control over that or >> the language is utterly bustificated. > > Yes, but the allocator may want to do something else as well, and > construct and destroy serve as hooks for whatever that may be.
Regardless, there is absolutely _nothing_ in the standard AFAICT which indicates the containers must use the allocator's construct and destroy, and several implementations in fact do not. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost