Re: [boost] [time_series] Review

From: Steven Watanabe (steven_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-10 19:25:57

AMDG

Eric Niebler <eric <at> boost-consulting.com> writes:
 
> My point is, the phrase "if you want buffering" doesn't make any sense. 
> The user (or generic algorithm) doesn't know and shouldn't care what the 
> optimal insertion strategy for a given series type is.

Is there any data structure for which buffering actually helps?

> Let's back up. Why do you believe that
> 
>    back_insert (v1, from1, to1)
>    back_insert (v2, from2, to2)
>    back_insert (v3, from3, to3)
> 
> should be lower-level than
> 
>    begin transmission
>    back_insert (v1, from1, to1)
>    back_insert (v2, from2, to2)
>    back_insert (v3, from3, to3)
>    end transmission
> 
> ?
> 

It is possible to implement either
in terms of the other so in a sense neither
one is intrinsically "lower-lever."

The first is simpler.  I do not think the
second gains enough flexibility to justify
the added complexity.  I've just been running
some tests with binary trees and the results
are surprising.  Neither msvc 8.0 nor gcc 3.4
implement the range insertion in linear time
for sorted ranges (In spite of the standard).
Both just do an element by element insert.
Second, I discovered that the map_back_inserter
I posted is as fast as a buffered version (
the buffering is insignificant, BTW).

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe