Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-08 12:59:53

"Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "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:

Actually, no. I realized you're making the argument below.

> object pushed out of circular_buffer because container got full must
> be destroyed.

Why? I mean, the only reason I can see for that requirement is an
aesthetic one. I don't see any logical foundation for the assertion.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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