On 29 August 2013 12:19, Umara Dissanayake wrote:
> Hi Jonathan,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> "To avoid the copy done by get_allocator() the container would have to
> store two allocator objects, which would increase the size of some
> maps. The design of the STL assumes copying allocators is relatively
> cheap"
>
> This is what I needed to know, exactly WHY this design decision was made.
Traditionally allocators are lightweight and stateless, so copying
them is cheap. Storing two separate objects is not necessary if
copying them is cheap. That's a decision made 15 years ago during
standardization of C++ 1998, partly because specifying the semantics
of stateful allocators was too complicated to get right at the time.
> I was proposing to have two pointers pointing to objects of
> Alloc<_Rb_tree_node> and Alloc<value_type>. Forgive my incorrect
> terminology I've only been programming in C++ for six months.
You don't need pointers to objects, you need the objects themselves.
>
>
> If you could indulge me for one more question.
>
> In the code for stl_tree, the member variable _M_impl is used in quite
> a number of places, though I cannot seem to be able to find its
> initial definition. Has this been defined in some other way than being
> included in header files?
It's defined in _Rb_tree, maybe you missed it:
_Rb_tree_impl<_Compare> _M_impl;
