stl_alloc.h

[Phil Edwards]

On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 12:25:47PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> | > They aren't uglified.  Should they be?  Correctness says yes,
> | > backwards-compatability and usefulness say no.
> | 
> | I vote for yes. Let's see what others think.
> 
> Same here.

No problem for simple_alloc and debug_alloc.  I'll change those in my
checkin later today.

What about the typedefs "alloc" and "single_client_alloc"?  I just realized
that neither of those are in the standard either, but I suspect those may
be used more often (in user code) then the first two.

Phil

-- 
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace.  We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.            - Samuel Adams