Re: [boost] Interest in double-ended priority queue? (priority_deque)

Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in double-ended priority queue? (priority_deque)
From: Nathaniel McClatchey (njmcclatchey1990_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-01 21:37:18

I haven't found much information on testing for compatibility with
interprocess, but With proper use of mutexes (sharable for const
functions, exclusive for non-const) it should work with interprocess

For those of you who are interested in the project:
Should a comparison object be mutable or should it be copied when
needed by a const function?
Should the random-access functions remain? They do not affect
performance but if used improperly could lead to code dependent on the
workings of the priority_deque.
Should functions independent of value_type be member functions or
global functions in a special namespace?

Also, because I forgot to do this earlier, here's a link to the source
code for you to examine, criticize, use, and edit:
http://www.mediafire.com/?eikux8qolnzb8j0

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Joel <jdy_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Nathaniel McClatchey <njmcclatchey1990 <at> pointloma.edu> writes:
>
> Sounds interesting to me.  Good contribution to boost::container.  Is it ready
> to work with interprocess?
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost