Re: [boost] double_ended - request formal review

On 24 July 2016 at 14:44, Benedek Thaler wrote:

Thanks for the feedback, Mathias. You are right. This implementation detail is a consequence of honoring reserve calls:

devector<int> d; d.push_back(1); d.reserve_front(100); d.reserve_back(100);

The reserve back has to keep the front capacity untouched or it breaks the promise of it. This also applies to a series of push_front/pop_backs, for example.

I think it's pretty serious. Consider: int n; devector<int> d; d.push_back(0); for(int i=0; i