29 Apr
2013
29 Apr
'13
1:08 a.m.
I can't see why you prefer dimensions (2 ints) to capacity (1 size_t), seems to me that using capacity has both space & time efficiency (i.e. no need to recompute total_allocated_size_in_bytes);
For some reasons I was thinking about int overflow but I realized that doesn't make much sense. So, I changed the code to your suggestion.
I'm a bit worries of breaking too much code when
introducing into boost. What do you think?
It'd be better not to break the API (not sure if ABI matters) so I didn't propose the change, instead, we could have another one as I did for myself.
Yes, ABI changes matter since gil has been part of boost for a couple of years now. I made it note for the next gil version. Regards, Christian