Boost logo

Boost :

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-25 09:34:00

At 09:16 AM 5/25/2001, Larry Evans wrote:

>Your small/medium/large use comment is especially relevant since
>the other two methods analyzed so far find the roots by exhaustively
>searching the heap. This is the main reason I suggested cyclic_ptr
>would be better, although I haven't bothered yet to be more thorough
>in the comparison. I'm also thinking of raising the issue of why
>Boehm's collector shouldn't be used. The only reason I can think
>of is the remote possiblity of misidentifying pointers. This is the
>point raised by others, but it's especially relevant because this
>only becomes a problem with dense pointer graphs, which is the
>very place where the other methods, I suspect, will grind to a crawl.
>(Again, the last statement was made without any testing. It's
>just a first [or maybe 13th :)] impression.)

One point to keep in mind is the distinction between interface and

If the C++ committee were to standardize a smart pointer that could handle
cycles, they would specify only interface (and preconditions, effects, and
similar interface related items). The implementors will howl if the
interface specification forces a particular implementation. The user
advocates will howl if the interface appears hard to use, error prone, or
doesn't have well defined behavior. Various interests will howl if the
interface seems to preclude efficient operations.

So you might want to look at the interface issues in that light.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at