Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [GSOC] proposal for Trie
From: Michael Marcin (mike.marcin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-23 04:22:11

On 4/23/2013 1:37 AM, Antony Polukhin wrote:
> May be I'm missing something

Unfortunately I feel the same.

> But when we have access to internals it is a totally different situation:
> * If we develop a non-intrusive container, we are free to split its
> implementation to resource management and intrusive logic.

By doing this split aren't you making an intrusive container and then
layering the resource management ontop of it exactly as I suggested?

> * If we develop an intrusive container - we need to add resource
> management to make a non-intrusive container.

Isn't this the same thing?

> In both situations we achieve same results - we have intrusive and
> non-intrusive containers.
> So it works both ways *when we have access to internals* .

Right if you have a non-intrusive container and access to the source
code you can, most likely, refactor it to be an intrusive container but
I don't see how that is comparable to being able to layer an
non-intrusive interface over top an intrusive container without changing
the implementation.

To put it another way if there was only intrusive_trie in boost. And a
boost user using boost burned to a cd (read-only) she should be able to
make trie in user code by writing a simple non-intrusive adapter.

If there was only trie in boost in the same scenario she would not be
able to make use of boost trie to implement intrusive_trie in user code
short of copy-paste-modify.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at