On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 12:59 AM Ville Voutilainen <
ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 19:34, Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:35 PM Ville Voutilainen <
> ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >>
> >> What is a user of P1144 expected to do about
> >> "pmr and allocator aware types will behave in
> >> surprising ways when used in containers and
> >> algorithms" ?
> >
> > The proof is in the pudding! Try to find me a "surprising" behavior of
> allocator-aware types. The complete implementation of P1144, one compiler
> and two standard libraries, is available for perusal.
> > - https://godbolt.org/z/eM8saKe6b
>
> I take that as a suggestion to stop spending time on P1144 and to
> focus all work on P2786 instead.
> I do not have time for reverse-engineering riddles.
>

And yet you have time to troll the SG14 mailing list.
Look, you made the claim. Please provide your evidence.
I've already provided you with tons of resources on P1144. There's even a
table in P1144 §2.1
<https://quuxplusone.github.io/draft/d1144-object-relocation.html#applications>
showing all the industry libraries that have adopted P1144's semantics (and
in most cases, API naming conventions). *This includes BSL, precisely
because I wrote P1144R0 based on what BSL and Folly were already doing back
in 2018.*
I've also given public talks on P1144 and its predecessors, including "The
Best Type Traits C++ Doesn't Have"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWBfmmg8-Yo> (2018) and "Trivially
Relocatable" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGdfPextuAU> (2019).
So don't just toss off a claim like "pmr and allocator aware types will
behave in surprising ways when used in containers and algorithms" and bail
on the thread. *Show me* what you're talking about.

–Arthur