On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Scott McMurray
<me22.ca+boost@gmail.com> wrote:
On a circular_buffer, push_back wouldn't actually need to allocate
(though it would need more capacity than the rotate version), though
list, deque or most others would.
What exactly do you mean by this? Do you mean that push_back would not need to allocate if you use an appropriate allocator, like a pool? How would it need more capacity than 100 (still using your initial example)?
With a pool allocator, though, you
could plausibly avoid that issue, if you needed a different container
of buckets for some reason. Clearly, though, it's a theoretical
exercise as circular_buffer seems to provide exactly what you need.