From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-01 05:21:50
Daniel James wrote:
> Jeff Garland wrote:
>> Yesterday I got to see the first part of Scott Meyer's overview of
>> TR1 and Boost. Of course, he pointed out that we don't yet have the
>> hash collections in Boost. Looking over what's in the vault, it
>> looks like it's coming along well...seems like it's pretty much
>> ready for review? Since I see that I asked this in July does this
>> count as nagging ;-)
>>
> Sorry about the slow reply, I haven't been checking my email often
> recently.
>
> I just uploaded a new version, which fixes a bug and removes some
> unnecessary junk from the implementation.
>
> Looking at my to do list, it's mainly just to add more tests and
> examples, which probably don't strictly need to be done before a
> review. There are also a few minor issues with the standard to be
> sorted out.
>
> There is one problem that might be more serious. I'm not sure if
> Allocator::address or the allocator comparison operators are allowed
> to
> throw an exception. If they can, the implementation doesn't meet the
> exception requirements. Actually, if the allocator comparison
> operators
> can throw then it might not be possible to meet the swap exception
> requirements for most of the standard containers. So maybe I'm missing
> something. I haven't looked into this in much detail yet.
I don't know about address, but you are allowed to assume that all
allocators compare equal. Does that help?
John.