[boost] Re: [ptr_container] post review comments

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-12 01:50:05

"Pavel Chikulaev" <pavel.chikulaev_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:d3dqbf$gk6$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
| "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| news:d3d7uk$mm2$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
| > | How else could they be implemented?
| > no idea.
| So, maybe then derive from runtime_error, despite not safe ctors,
| like from std containers?
|
| > | If you scap them, no additional algorithms are needed,
| > | or you didn't provide some? AFAIK all std algorithms works just fine
| > with
| > | ptr_vector<T>::iterators, I just don't see any reason they shouldn't.
| >
| > no. you can't, eg.,  write sort() when the type is copyable (which is very
| > common).
| Now I see,

it will work on some libraries where it is guaranteed that a user defined swap
will
be found.

| I think we can't think that some algorithms are more important
| than
| others, so we should implement them all.

well, I think there is a key number of few algorithms which cover
99.9 % or the use cases.

In partucular, I think

sort()
merge()
erase_if()
unique()

is good enough.

| Should they be implemented in namespace boost (for compilers that support
| Koenig lookup),
| or in namespace std as overloads?

they should be member functions to reflect their special semantics and to
follow
the example of std::list..

| I can implement that algorithms, if you'd like to.

I've basically done it, but thanks anyway.

-Thorsten