On 9/23/13 7:50 AM, Manu wrote:
delete is important if your class is being allocated by a pool or something...
It's important as an API function, but not as a language primitive. "new" should also have been a function.
But you said before, people won't use 'new' if they are using an allocator. I'm really not sure that's a good idea.
I don't see another way if people are to define and use multiple allocators.
Most people (library authors!) don't actually care about their memory allocation, they will continue to use 'new', just because it's a keyword.
"new considered harmful" etc.
It also screws with generic code; X should be allocated with 'new', but Y should be allocated with yAllocator.alloc()? What if you decide that Z, which allocates with 'new', becomes a problem and you want to switch it into a pool? You now need to track down every instance of 'new Z', and change it.
We can only improve that situation by allowing people to replace the global allocator with their own allocators. Again, there's a disconnect here - I'm discussing "how to make it easy for people to define allocators" and you discuss "how to make it possible for people to plug allocators, once defined, as the global allocator". These are two distinct endeavors. At the level I'm at, I'm concerned with making good allocators easy to implement. You may say you don't care, and that's good feedback, but it's what I have for the time being.
Andrei
