From: Hans Dembinski (hans.dembinski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-01-06 10:47:19
> On 5. Jan 2021, at 23:25, Mehrdad Niknami via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Edit: Actually it just occurred to me there might be a solution for the
> first issue: an additional "start offset" parameter that gets adjusted by
> push_front could potentially avoid the performance hit to iterator
> subtraction. I'm a bit tempted to try to implement it and see if it breaks
> any assumptions I have, but it might work.
> That said though, it still wouldn't substitute for deque, given that the
> space complexity difference implies some deque users would now need to
> worry about manually calling reserve & shrink_to_fit (and then deal with
> having elements get moved), which deque doesn't have any notion of.
Ok, it sounds like it is sufficiently dissimilar from deque to be its own thing. It sounds like a useful addition to boost::container, would be great to hear what Ion Gaztanaga thinks.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk