From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-21 08:32:24
Neil Groves skrev:
> I am happy that you are not suggesting allocation in the push operation.
> I think that requiring a call to reserve() is surprising behaviour since one
> would have to call reserve() for the container to work. This is inconsistent
> with the standard containers in a different manner. I have always wanted my
> circular_buffer uses to be allocated at full size.
But isn't that 2^32 objects (i.e. *huge*)? (Or am I misunderstanding
> Perhaps the default
> behaviour could remain the same but an additional constructor could be
> provided to avoid allocation during construction?
Hm. I don't know. There is a lot of existing code that relies on cheap
default construction, e.g.:
map[ 1 ] = circular_buffer<T>(...);
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk