Subject: Re: [boost] [Countertree + Suballocator] New Version
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-16 11:13:26
On 16/04/12 15:41, Stewart, Robert wrote:
> Francisco José Tapia wrote:
>> In the previous message Mr.Mathias said I have a little time
>> for to attend this project (as I am doing now). I don't have
>> time for to read all the interesting things which I see every
>> day, but to attend the boost community is easy and a pleasure
>> for me
> I was going to reply to Mathias (Mr. Gaunard), that his conclusion was unjustified. His perspective appeared to be that those putting work and family ahead of Boost work are unworthy to submit to Boost.
I didn't mean this, I was just pointing out that a bit of commitment is
necessary to submit a library to Boost. We certainly don't want authors
to disappear once they have "given" their library to Boost.
>> It is a stange situation. I am the author, and say "the
>> suballocator is a pool allocator, and when have a chuck of
>> memory free, return it to the allocator". Mr Mathias respond
>> that according the theory, a pool allocator don't do that and
>> if do, it have a great cost in performance. The suballocator is
>> the empirical demostration that this theory is not correct.
> I was starting to get a little lost in Mathias's arguments, too.
There was no real argument, I was just trying to understand a bit more
about this library. Francisco's description wasn't very clear on how
this new approach compared to those that are already popular in the C++
In any case, I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, that wasn't my intention.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk