Re: [boost] [review] The review of Boost.DoubleEnded starts today: September 21 - September 30

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] The review of Boost.DoubleEnded starts today: September 21 - September 30
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-12 18:34:37

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:17 PM, Ion Gaztañaga via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 12/10/2017 10:37, Thorsten Ottosen via Boost wrote:
>
> That means your design where capacity is the the full buffer length can
>> satisfy both situations. So I agree with you. But it also calls into
>> question the need for anything else than capacity (i.e., there seem to be
>> vanishingly little use for back_capacity/front_capacity and they probably
>> confuse more than they help).
>>
>
> I agree. If capacity is the full buffer length, only back/front_capacity
> make sense.
>

Normally, my check against capacity() is usually about iterators, pointers
and/or references possibly being invalidated more than knowing that an
actual allocation will take place.

Have we considered capacity() == min(front_capacity(), back_capacity())?

Just a thought,
 Nevin :-)
-- 
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden] <nevin_at_[hidden]>>
[phone]