From: Alberto Barbati (abarbati_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-08 05:28:33
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
> Alberto Barbati <abarbati_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>BTW, this discussion triggers some other ideas. Have you considered adding to
>>the circular_buffer the capability to optionally notify the user about an
>>impeding overwrite? I have at least one use case where it might be useful. It
>>might be as easy as invoking a boost::function0 callback, at the cost of few
>>bytes in footprint and an extra test before any overwrite. Alternatively, we
>>could put hooks (in form of a template policy, for example) in the main
>>container that are then implemented by a container adaptor, so the user won't
>>pay if it doesn't want such a feature.
> I would think that sort of feature would be better implemented as a
> wrapper around the circular_buffer container.
I tend to agree, in fact I mentioned container adaptor (= wrapper) in
the list of alternatives. I guess such an adaptor could perform the task
more efficiently if the underlying container provided the right hooks,
but until we agree on the semantic and have a reasonable test
implementation it's difficult to tell.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk