From: Rainer Deyke (root_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-25 13:03:08
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] auto_sequence (was auto_vector)
> From: "Rainer Deyke" <root_at_[hidden]>
> > From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> > > What are the main differences between auto_vector<T> and vector<
> > > shared_ptr<T> > ?
> > 'vector<shared_ptr<T> >' does not enforce strict ownership,
> Why is this a good thing? If I have a raw pointer and the
> dies, I'm left with a dangling pointer.
It is useful as a statement of intent. A strict ownership hierarchy
simplifies things. For instance, you never have to worry about
> OTOH if I never hold pointers to objects when the container dies,
> vector<shared_ptr<T>> will be equivalent to auto_vector.
You can't tell that this is the case without looking at all uses of
> > uses much
> > more memory, and is slightly slower on operations that copy the
> > underlying objects.
> Yes, the size/performance implications are, well, implied. :-) I was
> thinking about the semantics. I.e. is an auto_vector only an
> to be used when size/performance matters?
Size/performance always matters unless proven otherwise, especially in
library code. But there are several semantic differences, most of
them related to the fact that 'vector<shared_ptr<T> >::value_type' is
'shared_ptr<T>' while 'auto_vector<T>::value_type' is 'T *'.
-- Rainer Deyke | root_at_[hidden] | http://rainerdeyke.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk