[boost] Re: Formal Review: Circular Buffer

From: Pavel Vozenilek (pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-08 12:35:41

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote

> > Now if there will be the assignment idiom
> > applied the front-most will be assigned to the new one
> > - it will be not destroyed (no destructor will be
> > called). IMHO this is not correct. The old element
> > will not disappear - just its value/state will be
> > different. I think that the overwrite operation means
> > destruction of the old object, NOT assignment. What do
> > you think?
>
> I think it introduces inefficiencies that most people won't want to
> pay for, and I don't see any benefits other than lifting the
> requirement on assignability.  Types that are copiable but not
> assignable are rare, though, at least in my experience.
>
I think you are missing the point: object pushed out
of circular_buffer because container got full must be destroyed.

Therefore assignement is not used, therefore no CopyConstructible
requirement on T.

(I'll look whether there aren't other places requiring assignement.)

/Pavel