Re: [boost] [shared_ptr] dangerous implementation of moveconstructor

From: Felipe Magno de Almeida (felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-17 12:23:56

On 4/17/07, Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> [snip]

> If we left that undefined the complexity of a move operation could be
> terribly varying depending on the implementation, and by consequence,
> unusable. In a container, for example, operation complexity refers to
> search and copy, but in node containers destroying values is orders of
> magnitude slower than doing a search. Information is power.

That's what the complexity guarantees are for. There could be a
guarantee of O(1) for move-constructors and then the implementation
chooses how to implement it. Seems very reasonable to me and seems to
be usual approach in standardization, wrt. containers.

>
> Ion
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>

-- 
Felipe Magno de Almeida