From: Gregory Colvin (gregory.colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-02 13:47:29
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"?