On 6/19/11 4:53 PM, dsimcha wrote:
On 6/18/2011 10:00 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'd like to kindly request the author, the review manager, and the
community that TempAlloc skips this round of reviews without inclusion
in Phobos, to be reviewed again later.
The design of TempAlloc is plenty adequate for its charter, but the
charter itself is too narrow. I'd like to design together with David a
more general allocator interface in which TempAlloc would be a player.
That requires massive changes to the interface, but relatively small
changes to the implementation.
If we don't do this, TempAlloc would be an outlier once we have
allocator, and would need to be adapted in order to mix and match with
other allocation strategies.
Please let me know if that's a possibility and I'll get back with
details.
Thanks,
Andrei
Sorry for the late reply. I was on a camping trip without internet
access this weekend. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I'd love
to work on a general allocator interface and fit TempAlloc to it.
Great, thanks. Destroy the API I posted preemptively.
Andrei
