Subject: Re: [boost] [utility] new auto_buffer class --- RFC
From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-06 05:30:55
Scott McMurray skrev:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 18:29, Thorsten Ottosen
> <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I do not want to supply the whole interface of vector.
> Why not?
It's a lot of work, so if rather have a reason to do this. And in
general it is not a drop-in replacement for vector, so there is no
reason to pretend it is.
>> For the
>> operations that they have in common, it is almost a drop-in replacement.
>> I say almost, because this class is really about speed, and often don't
>> allow overlapping ranges, assignment to *this etc. The exception-safety
>> guarantees might also be weaker if it hurts performance.
> I think anything that's an "almost" needs an explicit rationale. I
> really don't, for example, see why the self-assignment check is worth
The rationale would be simplicity, speed and less generated code.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk