Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > I plan to work on containers,
"I plan".. "I plan to work on".... You're not a very good planner though, huh. Or do indulge and show me that you are (rhetorical). Forget what I said. What do you wish? Distinctly different (note the emphasis), ... (I forgot the thought while writing the parenthetical thought). A plan, is a plan, is a plan, is a plan. Might I interest anyone in my own personal "plan"? Well you know I'm going to tell you anyway, so just change the channel if you hate me. Is "plan" a word? (I need a drink, brb). Ok, I'm back. I think I know your plan. I am drinking heavily these days because you plan eclipsed my plan. I, of course, am ready to... "Even .... ha! how to frame that one! "Even I" can't.... "Even" I can't... WTF, you are programmers. WTF, aren't you? "There are two basic paths from here." "There is a fork in the road". Over used by Johnny Carson for decades. ("bless him", I was about to type "bless his soul") > One is to make the allocator I don't think you are sure about that. Did One do that? Or are you just here? > a > template parameter Or do just hope to fullfill some kind of "template parameter"? > a la STL. It's Ok, it's all the same "god". > The other is to define You sound really "definitive". > a dynamic Buzz word. > allocator interface and use it. Make me. I don't dare you. > > Making the allocator a part of the container type would go the STL > way, Didn't evangelists like that go out in the 50's? > and STL allocators are essentially a failed experiment. But your snake oil is best. > I'm only I assure you that. > partially clear on why it has failed, As if anyone actually gives a shit what you are spouting about? > but it does seem To you, or those you try to hypnotize? Hmm? > that part of > the reason was making the allocator a template parameter. There is no evidence of your ability to reason. > > Defining You wish you could define anything. > and using an allocator interface would have a small speed > impact (i.e. allocation would entail an indirect call) but I think > that would be acceptable. > Who cares what you think?