On Tuesday 26 August 2003 01:23 pm, Peter Dimov wrote: > Leaving aside the issue of whether specializing std::allocator<MyClass> is > a good idea: > > shared_ptr< MyClass, MyAllocator > s; > > note that you now wouldn't be able to pass s to a function that expects > shared_ptr<MyClass> since the type is not the same.
There's no reason shared_ptr couldn't support a constructor that takes an allocator as an argument. Then sp_counted_base_impl would also take an Allocator parameter (heh, the allocator it was in fact allocated with) and would know how to deallocate itself via a (copy of) this allocator. We'd get allocator support without putting the allocator into the type of shared_ptr (just like we have deleter support). Doug _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost