From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-31 13:19:26
At 08:27 2005-05-31, you wrote:
>>There's a pretty nice implementation of COW objects in the Adobe Open
>>Source library (http://opensource.adobe.com). You might take a look
>I saw it. Honestly, after I implemented COW myself :) Do you want to say
>it's no sence to double existing things?
>>that implements NRVO (Named Return Value Optimization) can return an
>>object (essentially) by const reference without any special COW
>Agree, this is not the best example for such a compiler. AFAIK VC++
>doesn't implement this optimization.
>>Also, some C++ Standard Library implementations use
>>a reference-counted std::string implementation, so this extra effort
>>would be wasted.
>STLport and Dinkumware (I suppose most widely used) doesn't belong to that
>implementations. That's why personally I require COW-wrapper.
IIRC there was an article written with the title something like
"Pessimization" which discussed the drawbacks to COW in a
multi-threading/tasking world. It's one of the reasons that quit using
I think you need to re-evaluate your "requirement"
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk