Subject: Re: [boost] double_ended - request formal review
From: Thorsten Ottosen (tottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-08-23 10:06:25
On 26-07-2016 18:14, Michael Marcin wrote:
> I haven't looked at the code but from your description it seems like
> there is an implicit connection between reserve_front and reserve_back.
>
Rather, it is the opposite: they are independent. Calling one does not
modify the promise of the other.
> I would expect this to be explicit and there to be 3 reserve methods.
>
> reserve_front( size )
> reserve_back( size )
> reserve( front_size, back_size )
>
> And that the implementation only maintain stability until a realloc
> occurs from any source (push/insert/reserve/whatever).
Since devector strives to be close to vector, it has a reserve function
taking one argument which does what vector does (important for generic
code). I guess a two argument version would add a slight convenience,
but not much.
> If a realloc occurs it should be free to reposition the elements in the
> already allocated memory block by rotating them forward or back.
>
> It should also be free to change the available capacity at either end.
Yeah, but the hard question is what is gained by that? What would a
sound policy look like? There is the policy parameter which could do
more things, but we need a really sound policy for moving things around
implictly. I suspect that it will create confusing and lead to few if
any benefits. The current implementation should be simple to understand
and use.
kind regards
Thorsten