Re: [boost] [Containers] Should flat_* expose implementation vector?

Subject: Re: [boost] [Containers] Should flat_* expose implementation vector?
From: Michel MORIN (mimomorin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-05 22:42:40

Scott McMurray wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 5, 2011 at 19:05, Michel MORIN <mimomorin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> Or, I would want `uncompared_push_back` (just filling the flat_* container
>> without sorting) and `sort` functions.
>>
>
> Can we do this with move semantics instead?

Partially yes.
But, partially no: when using stack-based allocator (or stack-based
container as the underlying implementation of flat_* containers),
the overhead of `move` is non-negligible.

Regards,
Michel