Subject: Re: [boost] [utility] new auto_buffer class --- RFC
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-02 23:18:42
AMDG
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>> Certainly swap should be provided somehow; a fast-as-possible swap is
>> not otherwise possible since the user can't get at the buffer pointer.
>> boost::array supports swap, and yours should be at least as fast as
>> that. On that precedent I'd say you should support swap() under that
>> name. Has anyone ever complained about the deceptive slowness of
>> boost::array's swap?
>
> I don't know. I just stay clear of it. The point is that we don't want
> inexperienced users to use an O(n) swap accidently.
Please define n. The cost is bounded by the stack
capacity, rather than the actual size.
In Christ,
Steven Watanabe