Re: [Boost-users] A need for a complex pool type container

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] A need for a complex pool type container
From: Robert Dailey (rcdailey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-19 02:20:32

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Scott McMurray <me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> On a circular_buffer, push_back wouldn't actually need to allocate
> (though it would need more capacity than the rotate version), though
> list, deque or most others would.

What exactly do you mean by this? Do you mean that push_back would not need
to allocate if you use an appropriate allocator, like a pool? How would it
need more capacity than 100 (still using your initial example)?

> With a pool allocator, though, you
> could plausibly avoid that issue, if you needed a different container
> of buckets for some reason.  Clearly, though, it's a theoretical
> exercise as circular_buffer seems to provide exactly what you need.