Re: [boost] shared_array.size()

From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-13 00:41:11

It's the name that worries me, it's the differing semantics,
I think null pointer to array versus pointer to empty array?

From: "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> "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> ?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
>