From: Bronek Kozicki (brok_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-21 05:18:35
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 18:20:58 -0700, Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> This is definitely an improvement over your earlier version! I like
> the idea of zero overhead for non-customized deletion.
I like it too. In fact I hate that "smart deleter" brings some overhwad,
even if it's quite small. Rule "do not pay for what you do not use"
simply do not allow it into language in place where it can bring most
benefit :( If only there was 0-overhead way to add deleter support in
runtime, not changing object (smart pointer one) type ...
> 2. move_ptr<T, kozicki> (the name needs work -- no offense Bronek :-)
> This would be (my version of) Bronek's pointer, with two pointers
> extra overhead and essentially no runtime overhead.
That's OK. But not to clutter source code with my name I prefer name
"auto_storage" , as everything is inside pointer stack storage.
> With this approach, we could run tests comparing the performance of
> the various implementations, and get people's appraisals of the
> overhead involved in each case.
Would be great.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk