From 3463429289284857015 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f78e5,c66ceaccc8f25e6b X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-24 06:30:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!mail2news.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "James Kuyper Jr." Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: Allocators, standard containers, and assignment Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 13:29:26 GMT Organization: Not enough Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ Message-ID: <3CC60C6E.61FB874A@wizard.net> References: <42aba677.0203291151.ff4f74c@posting.google.com> <3CAE478F.ECDBDB2C@wizard.net> <3CAFB23E.A7A68E71@wizard.net> <3CB63333.A97E7E27@wizard.net> <3CBBA3CC.B434A21C@wizard.net> <3CBEB889.4CB46076@wizard.net> <3CC23645.AB823219@wizard.net> X-Trace: mail2news.demon.co.uk 1019654971 mail2news:15483 mail2news mail2news.demon.co.uk X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net X-Mail2News-Path: news.demon.net!mulga.cs.mu.oz.au X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:25:27 CDT X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly Lines: 31 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.std.c++:10786 xleobx@qmailcomq.com wrote: > > James Kuyper Jr. wrote: .... > > The standard specifies what a==b means for Allocators, and of course > > support for inequivalent instances is encouraged in 20.1.5p5, so a fair > > 2.1.5p4 says "it's OK to cut corners"; 2.1.5p5 says "you're encouraged > not to cut corners". Guess what will the commercial implementors do? Both. Most will cut corners, a few will probably experiment. Which is precisely what the committee wanted. The next version of the standard should contian a more detailed specification of the semantics. The committee wanted a few implementations to experiment with the concept, to build up the experience need to help decide what those specifications should say. .... > I'm more interested in seeing an explanation of 2.1.5p4/2. I am really > annoyed by it, having to port software to a 64-bit platform. Could you explain that in more detail? By the way, it's 20.1.5, not 2.1.5. --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]