Hi Francois, I didn't follow his proposal closely, but I believe that is exactly
what Thorsten Ottosen proposed with his auto_buffer proposal, no? AFAIK he has offered a fairly polished implementation, which is now awaiting review.
This is the first I have heard of Thorsten Ottose's auto_buffer proposal. Do you have a link to it?
As has been asked before by Frank Mori Hess in this thread, and as I don't believe you have answered yet, in what respects is your proposal better/different from Thorsten's auto_buffer?
My apologies if I overlooked that question. I do not recall seeing it. The purpose of boost::monotonic is to allow containers to share the same, fixed-size storage, and to not perform any memory management. Objects can be created and destroyed, but the percentage of used storage always monotonically increases. That fixed-size storage can come from either the heap or the stack. If auto_buffer does that, then yes there is a conflict and redundant effort.
Thanks, François
Cheers, Christian