Re: [boost] Abstract STL Container Adaptors

Subject: Re: [boost] Abstract STL Container Adaptors
From: Andy Jost (Andrew.Jost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-03-14 18:24:03

On 14 March 2013 16:31, Neil Groves <neil_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> Virtual functions calls add very appreciable overhead relative to the 
>> numerous small functions that would need runtime polymorphism for the 
>> idiom to work. The overhead is particularly severe with super-scalar 
>> processor architectures. To some this won't be important of course.
>>

>Of course, if performance it isn't important, then just use std::set and be done with it.
>Is there any criterion besides performance that people choose between set and unordered_set where generalization would make any sense?

The key question is: who gets to make that decision?  ``my_algorithm`` may be happy to use std::set, but it's really the caller's choice.  Perhaps the information ``my_algorithm`` needs already lives somewhere in a boost::multi_index_container.  Does it really need to be copied just to call ``my_algorithm``?

Perhaps I would like to compile ``my_algorithm`` once and stick it in a library file.  Does it really need to be recompiled for each concrete container type?

-Andy