Re: [boost] shared_array.size()

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-13 00:04:06

"shared_array2" was just a placeholder

any-resemblance-to-class-temlates-living-or-dead-is-pure-coincidence-ly
y'rs,
dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Colvin" <gcolvin_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2000 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] shared_array.size()

> Yep, and adding a size field to shared_array is extra overhead as well,
> but maybe not so bad.  What I don't like is setting the size field
> separately, but I'm not sure I like your shared_array2 interface either.
> In particular, what about
>
>    boost::shared_array<int> x(0);
>
> vs.
>
>    boost::shared_array2<int> x(0);
>
> From: "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> > Okay; there's one extra level of indirection in that case, though, and a
bit
> > more overhead, FWIW.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Greg Colvin" <gcolvin_at_[hidden]>
> >
> >
> > > So use shared_ptr<vector> ?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>