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 22:50:06

2011/8/6 Michel MORIN <mimomorin_at_[hidden]>:
> Scott McMurray wrote:
>> 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.

I meant, "the overhead of move-construct is non-negligible."

Regards,
Michel