Subject: Re: [boost] [utility] new auto_buffer class --- RFC
From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-03 04:45:33
Steven Watanabe skrev:
> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>>> Certainly swap should be provided somehow; a fast-as-possible swap is
>>> not otherwise possible since the user can't get at the buffer pointer.
>>> boost::array supports swap, and yours should be at least as fast as
>>> that. On that precedent I'd say you should support swap() under that
>>> name. Has anyone ever complained about the deceptive slowness of
>>> boost::array's swap?
>> I don't know. I just stay clear of it. The point is that we don't want
>> inexperienced users to use an O(n) swap accidently.
> Please define n.
n would be c.size()
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk