Subject: Re: [boost] Proposal: Monotonic Containers
From: Christian Schladetsch (christian.schladetsch_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-06-09 08:29:14
Hi Joaquín,
I concur. Also, replicating container classes for the sake of avoiding this
> little
> boilerplate code is a maintenance bottleneck.
STL isn't rapidly changed. I agree that my proposal is not complete with all
forwarding construction parameters. But they are readily added if the
underlying idea is accepted.
People will expect that a monotonic::foo<..> is like a foo<..>, and they
will accept that it requires a storage argument. But they will find it
harder to accept that it requires retooling from a type-argument level of
the allocator.
Regards,
Christian.