Boost logo

Boost :

From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-08 08:31:44

On Friday 08 March 2002 13:46, you wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "rwgk" <rwgk_at_[hidden]>
> > Without this back door only friend functions could use the
> > mechanism that I just explained. I have no clue how the
> > same effect could be achieved without violating the
> > principle of encapsulation. Personally I have no problem
> > with this pragmatic approach, but as I said, I am not going
> > to argue the case with respect to a standard container.
> Here's a thought:
> Suppose we could hand vector<T> a chunk of memory and tell it "this
> contains memory for N instances of T, the first M of which have been
> constructed", and have it use that memory?
Yesterday I also posted something similar to solve it, in the short term,
with soth like :
double* uninitialised = new double[ ncomplexes * 2 ]
std::vector< complex< double > > v(ncomplexes, uninitialised);

the vector constructor will still need to cast the array to an array of
complexes (not that this also relies on the discussed layout of a complex)

But once layout and initialisation is covered, what about copying for
intstance. If I std::copy( complex1_begin, complex1_end, complex2_begin),
is the compiler able to use memcpy (AFAIK it will call the assignment op for
every one of them)

(hoping this msg will finally make it to the group)

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