Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [utility] new auto_buffer class --- RFC
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-14 00:12:50

On Mar 6, 2009, at 2:30 AM, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

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

Have you measured the speed/space difference and found it to be
significant in any real application?

A class that attempts to provide value semantics but doesn't support x
= x is putting a big hole in the system of equational reasoning.
Justifying that (to me) would take some pretty heavy proof.

David Abrahams
BoostPro Computing

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