Subject: Re: [boost] [utility] new auto_buffer class --- RFC
From: Felipe Magno de Almeida (felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-02 13:29:55
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Thorsten Ottosen
> Thorsten Ottosen skrev:
> I guess your case above should be implemented as
> for # of rows
> v.resize( n );
> for each element read e
> process( v.begin(), v.end() )
> where v.resize() should never actually shrink the buffer.
> (Do we need another function that does that?), or should we simply
> rename v.resize(n) to v.ensure_capacity(n).
> But as the example above shows, we do not need a growing push_back()
Nor we would for std::vector if we use it the way you suggest.
> If the name push_back() is problematic, then I'm all for just calling
> it something else.
How is the usage you shown faster than a growing push_back?
> But I don't like adding a growing push_back() unless we have a use-case.
The use-case seems obvious to me. A vector that can use stack-allocation
for >90% of the cases for an application. As someone pointed out, signals2
uses one in a detail namespace.
-- Felipe Magno de Almeida
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk