Re: [boost] Re: ptr<>

From: Larry Evans (jcampbell3_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-22 22:10:42

Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:

>s_offset could use something similar to map_offset also, but I would
>personally prefer a fragmented vector or simply some limited (min, max)
>vector because direct access is faster.  The bound vector would contribute
>for mathematics & their huge matrix simplifications at the same time.  Can
>you alter map_offset for bound_vector (or bvector) Larry?
>  
>
Phillippe, I hadn't really thought about it much, except that the vector 
is best
for speed reasons.  The only disadvantage of the vector is it might have 
a lot
uf undefined entries.   This memory disadvantage is most likely very 
small compared
to the memory used by the actual data.  The main disadvantage, with more
documentation, is questions in the minds of people trying to understand the
implementation.

I've another suggestion.  Since only the complex heirarchy needs the 
typeid, why
not just use something else for the other 2 heirarchies.  That way, 
people wouldn't
wonder what the use of typeid is to the other types of heirarchy.  Of 
course, that
means a different placement new, and maybe that's to much bother.  I 
could understand
either way.