Re: C++0x container constructors for DefaultConstructible objects - no allocator?
Howard Hinnant wrote:
:: In article <5b91g3F2rt1iiU1@mid.individual.net>,
:: firstname.lastname@example.org ("Bo Persson") wrote:
::: I notice in the draft N2284 that sequence containers have had one
::: constructor split in two. We now have (for list<T>):
::: explicit list(size_type n);
::: list(size_type n, const T& value, const Allocator& = Allocator());
::: How come the first type of constructor doesn't take an allocator
:: Mainly just history. People have never been able to say:
:: std::list<T, A> c(n, A());
:: And I've never heard any requests for that functionality. So I
:: didn't add it. It easily could be added. Is there demand for it?
:: Would you be willing to write a short paper or defect report with
:: detailed proposed wording relative to N2284?
I was really just curious about why one constructor breaks the
pattern. Having already written a defect report for for strings
(#614), I noticed that other containers now also deviate from the
container requirements in 23.1/9, where it says that constructors
should all take an Allocator& argument. Except when they don't?
I can also guess that the new constructor should default construct the
container's allocator member, but haven't found that it says so
anywhere. Did I miss this requirement, or is it just obvious anyway?
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:email@example.com ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]