std.allocator.allocate(0) -> return null or std.allocator.allocate(1)?

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 15 May 2015 at 17:01:26 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 5/15/15 9:44 AM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= 
> <schuetzm at gmx.net>" wrote:
>> Ha! Two fools, one thought :-)
>
> It's a nice idea but as Vladimir mentioned expand(), 
> reallocate(), free() - all need now to worry about checking two 
> singular values instead of one.
>
> Since there's a long-established tradition that reallocate() 
> and free() accept a null pointer, we can't (and probably 
> shouldn't) change that. So I'm thinking in a way null as a 
> singular value comes for "free".

Yes, and std.allocator is a new piece of software, which means we 
can choose what makes sense and don't need to worry about 
compatibility. It just needs to be clearly defined.