Less good ;-) results from Rittle's string allocator

[Benjamin Kosnik]

> Right.  I guess what I'm saying is that in most cases as stay strictly
> standard as much as possible, but I'd like to have a nice memory pool
> allocator.  The library has one that I'm willing to use as an
> extension.  My alternative is to write/find another one, which also
> wouldn't be standard, so I'm no worse off.

I think it makes sense to have this as a well-supported extension.

> In summary, what I'm asking is that since the memory pool logic in the
> library is nice, well-optimized, well-maintained, and bug-free (?),
> it'd be nice to expose it as an extension since I'd have to go make
> one or find one anyway.  I would be forever greatful :)

I like this idea.

-benjamin