Subject: Re: [boost] RFC: A better shared_array
From: Olaf van der Spek (ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-16 10:35:34
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> One question you'll invariably get from people is why you don't store begin
> into the shared_ptr, eliminating one pointer:
> shared_ptr<T> begin_;
> size_t size_;
That's just an implementation detail.
You can't use iterator_range that way. Instead of shared_ptr you could
store just a pointer to the counter.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk