Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [utility] new auto_buffer class --- RFC
From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-06 10:20:58

Stewart, Robert skrev:
> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> On Thursday, March 05, 2009 6:30 PM
>> I do not want to supply the whole interface of vector. 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.
> If your goal is speed at the expense of all else, then name the class "fast_buffer" or something of that sort. It should be clear that there are many interested in a vector replacement that includes the small buffer optimization. If you're not interested in creating the latter, perhaps another will.

Perhaps. It is difficult to design a class that fits both purposes well.
For example, the resize() strategy would be different -- in auto_buffer
it is agreesive, because we know it is (almost always) used locally.

The fact that it it can have a large space overhead is not a problem for
auto_buffer's intended use, but could be if people start using it as vector.

So is the complexity/nothrow guarantee of swap() etc.


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