Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [GSOC] proposal for Trie
From: Michael Marcin (mike.marcin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-23 05:25:27

On 4/23/2013 3:52 AM, Antony Polukhin wrote:
> Now I get it...
> I was talking about intrusive/non-intusive with full access to sources
> (in my head Boosters were doing one container from another), you were
> talking about user that has no access to internals of implementation.
> From your point of view intrusive containers provide better code
> reuse, from my point of view Boosters/GSOC will do both
> implementations and there is no big difference from where to start.
> Using your point of view: Code reuse is times better, but users
> (including me) are usually lazy and more of them will prefer to work
> with non-intrusive container, which makes intrusive less popular.


As a user you'll almost always just use non-intrusive because it is
easier, safer and has good enough performance, until it doesn't.

Then it's nice to be able to reach for an intrusive version that you can
trust. And if your non-intrusive version that you've been using
successfully is built on an intrusive version, and that intrusive
version is built using the wonderfully designed boost.intrusive library
you can migrate your code with a high degree of confidence.


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