Vote on region allocator

[dame]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> I plan to work on containers,

"I plan".. "I plan to work on".... You're not a very good planner though, 
huh. Or do indulge and show me that you are (rhetorical). Forget what I 
said.

What do you wish? Distinctly different (note the emphasis), ... (I forgot 
the thought while writing the parenthetical thought).

A plan, is a plan, is a plan, is a plan. Might I interest anyone in my 
own personal "plan"? Well you know I'm going to tell you anyway, so just 
change the channel if you hate me. Is "plan" a word? (I need a drink, 
brb). Ok, I'm back.

I think I know your plan. I am drinking heavily these days because you 
plan eclipsed my plan. I, of course, am ready to...

"Even ....
ha! how to frame that one!

"Even I" can't....
"Even" I can't...

WTF, you are programmers. WTF, aren't you?

"There are two basic paths from here."

"There is a fork in the road".

Over used by Johnny Carson for decades. ("bless him", I was about to type 
"bless his soul")

>  One is to make the allocator

I don't think you are sure about that. Did One do that? Or are you just 
here?

>  a
> template parameter

Or do just hope to fullfill some kind of "template parameter"?

>  a la STL.

It's Ok, it's all the same "god".

> The other is to define

You sound really "definitive".

> a dynamic

Buzz word.

> allocator interface and use it.

Make me. I don't dare you.

>
> Making the allocator a part of the container type would go the STL
> way,

Didn't evangelists like that go out in the 50's?

>  and STL allocators are essentially a failed experiment.

But your snake oil is best.

> I'm only

I assure you that.

> partially clear on why it has failed,

As if anyone actually gives a shit what you are spouting about?

> but it does seem

To you, or those you try to hypnotize? Hmm?

>  that part of
> the reason was making the allocator a template parameter.

There is no evidence of your ability to reason.

>
> Defining

You wish you could define anything.

> and using an allocator interface would have a small speed
> impact (i.e. allocation would entail an indirect call) but I think
> that would be acceptable.
>

Who cares what you think?