Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Frank Mori Hess skrev:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Monday 02 March 2009, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
where v.resize() should never actually shrink the buffer. (Do we need another function that does that?), or should we simply rename v.resize(n) to v.ensure_capacity(n).
I believe the usual way std::vector handles this is that resize() never reduces capacity, and if you do want to reduce capacity you have to swap your vector with a newly constructed one. Hmm, your auto_buffer doesn't support swap though.
No. As it might be O(n). I'm not against providing "swap()", it should just be under a different name, e.g. liniear_swap().
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? Also, I think the following sort of code is quite plausible: std::pair<int, auto_buffer<int, 2> > a,b; //... swap(a,b); (e.g. I often find myself sorting vectors of such pairs) and for that to work you need to provide a free swap overload. John Bytheway