Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Boost.XInt formal review
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-09 14:47:00
AMDG
On 03/06/2011 02:22 AM, Ivan Sorokin wrote:
> On 06.03.2011 05:23, Chad Nelson wrote:
>>> One more thought about "secure" option. There are no standard
>>> containers with this option. I think either both standard containers
>>> and integer_t should have such option or both shouldn't have. This is
>>> yet another argument for container parametrization.
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand your argument. Are you saying that because
>> there are no standard containers with a zero-memory-before-releasing
>> option, that the library shouldn't provide one either?
>>
> Yes. Why integer_t should be an exception?
Just a thought: Maybe the Allocator should handle this,
since it's related to memory management?
In Christ,
Steven Watanabe