Re: [boost] [utility] new auto_buffer class --- RFC

Subject: Re: [boost] [utility] new auto_buffer class --- RFC
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-07 08:29:36

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 6, 2009, at 5:30 AM, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden] 
 > wrote:

> 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 et
>> 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
>> omitting.
>
> The rationale would be simplicity, speed and less generated code.
>
> -Thorsten