Re: [boost] [range] fat iterators?

Subject: Re: [boost] [range] fat iterators?
From: Eric Niebler (eniebler_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-07 16:33:41

On 11/7/2013 8:29 PM, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> Remark on your article: did you benchmark your new design in terms of
> speed and size?

I did the size benchmark. Boost's istream_range<string>, which is a pair
of std::istream_iterators, is 24 bytes, and the iterators are 12. My
istream_range is 8 bytes, and the iterator is 4. That's with libstdc++
4.7. The differences can be larger on a platform that uses the
small-string optimization.

I didn't measure performance, I admit. Non-locality is a valid concern.
I have no doubt that it's possible to construct cases where one
implementation is faster than the other. Lies, damn lies, and
benchmarks, you know.

-- 
Eric Niebler
Boost.org
http://www.boost.org