Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [utility] new auto_buffer class --- RFC
From: Felipe Magno de Almeida (felipe.m.almeida_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-02 13:43:56

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Thorsten Ottosen
<thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Felipe Magno de Almeida skrev:


>> How is the usage you shown faster than a growing push_back?
> It's inlineable. And it doesn't check for a full buffer. The difference can
> be anything from not much to really much.

Can't push_back call reserve if it doesn't fit? That way push_back could
still be inlineable. Or am I missing something?

>>> 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.
> Is that use case different from the above?

I don't think so. But it is quite common it seems.

> -Thorsten

Felipe Magno de Almeida

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at