From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-06 14:22:04
"Eric Niebler" <eric_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Well if we could solve problem #1, the expense of the initial
>> construction becomes a non-issue for my case, because I'd only have
>> to search once. And regardless of all that, often convenience is
>> *way* more important than efficiency.
>> That said, as long as the match object is immutable, there's little
>> to worry about w.r.t. thread safety.
> Here there be dragons. An immutable match object is appealing, but the
> performance would be problematic. The match object is essentially a
> std::vector of sub-matches, dynamically allocated because you don't
> know how many sub-matches there will be until runtime.
Well, making the match object immutable is not my preferred approach
anyway; I was just trying to help John out.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk