From: Damien Fisher (damien_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-05 20:35:28
On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, Darin Adler wrote:
> On 2/5/02 1:08 PM, "AlisdairM" <AlisdairM_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > If the fixed_* templates are drop-in replacements for their STL namesakes,
> > then shouldn't the STL adaptors work unmodified?
> The fixed_* templates are almost drop-in replacements for the
> similarly-named containers in the standard library. The fixed_* versions are
> intended to be used when a fixed capacity limit is acceptable, and greater
> speed or memory efficiency is needed. Beman's timings indicated a speedup of
> as much as 8x in some cases, and the memory savings are significant too.
> This is the rationale for providing them.
I think the query above was more asking about why fixed_* adaptors were
provided, instead of using the STL ones (deque etc).
And I believe the answer is because a couple of extra functions were
But I haven't even looked at the source code.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk