On Tuesday, Sep 2, 2003, at 12:27 America/Denver, Peter Dimov wrote:
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.
I've heard allocators described that probably used construct() to navigate efficiently from a proxy pointer to the raw memory in which to construct. But I never saw the code.
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?
I don't see that there need be any performance price for what Dinkumware does, or is that not what you mean by "abstraction penalty"?
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
