Re: [boost] Proposed templated integer_sort

From: Phil Endecott (spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-08 12:25:26

Steven Ross wrote:
>> - Use new and delete rather than *alloc and free.
>> - Can any exceptions occur?  If so, is the dynamically allocated memory
>> leaked?  Could you use a smart pointer to avoid this?

I was referring to exceptions in general between allocation and 
de-allocation, not just during allocation itself.

> Using *alloc, they should return NULL if allocation failed, and that
> situation is handled.   With new and delete I'll have to catch memory
> exceptions

See new(nothrow).

>> - Does it work with uint64_t?  I see some variables declared as 'long',
>> which often can't store a uint64_t.
>
> There exists the problem of how to identify and deal with negatives.  I try
> to avoid forcing any particular return data type

Why not just use Iterator::value_type (or whatever it's called; or some 
iterator_traits thing) everywhere?

> They are already divided
> by 512, so an unsigned should fit inside a signed data type without trouble.

Dividing a 64-bit value by 512 does not make it small enough to fit in 
a 32-bit long.  (Have I misunderstood you?)

Phil.