From: Marcus Lindblom (macke_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-29 14:58:31
Michael Marcin wrote:
> Marcus Lindblom wrote:
>> Thomas Witt wrote:
>>> There are two open tickets for pool in 1.34.1.
>> I looked at 284, but I couldn't decide which value to set next_size to
>> in purge_memory() (which, I believe, is the correct way to fix this).
>> I.e. whether to:
>> * Just use the default value (32).
>> * Add a new member variable to the class, initial_size, and use that.
>> I think I can present a patch for either, I'm just not sure what the
>> best approach is. (I was sort of hoping for the lib author to emerge
>> and provide guidance.)
> How about something like
> bool purge_memory( size_type new_next_size = 32 );
Yeah. That would work, but... I'd like to leave the interface unchanged
and just fix the bug, if possible.
#2 is probably the best way to solve it, since it won't require users to
specify the initial size in several places.
The argument against it is that it adds another variable to the class,
but that might not matter much as pool objects are rare and not copyable
What do you think?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk