On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 09:22 America/Denver, David Abrahams wrote:
Gregory Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I think part of my point was that *nobody* needs what they offer, if you include construct/destroy.
Or rather that some implementations have failed to use what they offer, and our standard unfortunately doesn't insist that they do.
It's not unfortunate if it adds nothing, which is what I believe.
Another reason construct is needed is that Allocator::pointer might be a proxy, with operator* and operator-> but not necessarily a conversion to void* or even T*.
Doesn't matter; you can always get the address of an object. See http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-closed.html#390
So you would rather use this than use construct?
template <typename T> T* addressof(T& v)
{
return reinterpret_cast<T*>(
&const_cast<char&>(reinterpret_cast<const volatile char &>(v)));
}
In fact, construct requires undefined behavior for non-POD T because you can't copy its T* argument which points into raw storage.
I don't understand what you mean by this. Are you claiming that it is undefined to copy just a pointer to raw storage?
Unless the pointer has the right type, yes.
In which case the A::pointer return from A::allocate() is already undefined behavior?
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
