On 8 February 2010 12:50, Frank Winter <frank.winter@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Would it be possible for someone to explain why the optional argument > typename std::allocator<void>::const_pointer = 0 is there? > > It's a typename that can be suppressed. Why to write it in the first place > then? Is this written to disambiguate something? > I think the typename keyword is a mistake. The argument, on the other hand, is intended as a locality hint. The idea is that std::list could get less atrocious coherency, for instance. Whether anything actually uses it -- either as consumer or provider -- I have no idea. ~ Scott
