Re: [boost] Interest in StaticVector - fixed capacity vector

Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in StaticVector - fixed capacity vector
From: Andrew Hundt (athundt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-19 10:47:58

>> I'll probably attempt to make StaticVector fulfill use case (1) with
>> bounds checking performed using assert, in a way that makes it viable
>> for use internally within AutoBuffer as well if the writer of that
>> library desired to. The way I see things, if I implement StaticVector
>> using assert, someone can inherit from my class and add exceptions if
>> desired. I may be mistaken, but one could not do the same the other
>> way around without any sacrifice, since some implementations of
>> exceptions incur performance penalties.
>
> I don't see the advantage to use internally AutoBuffer here, but maybe I'm
> missing something evident.

I just saw it as a reasonable place where the code could be reused,
for the buffer portion of the autobuffer implementation. Not
necessary, just a possibility.

>>
>> As for check/unchecked bounds, I'll start with push_back being
>> checked, and provide unchecked_push_back + unchecked_insert. I know it
>> is less popular than a policy based implementation but I feel like
>> there will be reduced overhead for compiler implementations with less
>> effective optimizations, though this is based only on others' comments
>> earlier on in the thread. Since this is (for me at least) designed to
>> also be useful for embedded applications which may have stricter
>> requirements, I find this to be a sensible choice.
>
> I will add that the push_back is checked only in debug mode as it will use
> assert.
> Then the unchecked version lost its utility on release mode.
>>

perhaps all the checks should only build in debug mode?

>>
>> I have one additional question regarding the size. It was requested
>> that I use boost::uint_value_t<N>::least, but I am concerned this
>> would inhibit uses where one inherits from StaticVector to add
>> functionality such as what is found in AutoBuffer. Should I stick to
>> std::size_t, boost::uint_value_t<N>::least, or allow the size type to
>> be set with a template parameter?
>>
>>
> You can always add a size_type template parameter that is defaulted to
>
> boost::uint_value_t<N>::least.
>
> Best,
> Vicente
>

Fair enough, I'll do that.

Cheers!
Andrew Hundt