Hi Thorsten, I'm sorry but I don't have time for this. I can still do circullar_buffer bug fixing and maintenance but have no time for new development as my priorities have changed. Thank you for understanding. Regards, Jan ----- Original Message ---- From: Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen@dezide.com> To: "boost@lists.boost.org" <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Friday, 1 May, 2009 10:44:09 Subject: [boost] [interprocess][circular_buffer] specialized containers should have container template argument Hi Ion and Jan, I often use these containers: flat_set, flat_map and circular_buffer. They are great. However, we can make them faster if you allow a new template argument. For example template < class T, class Alloc, class Buffer = /* some default */

class circular_buffer; template < typename T, typename Pred, typename Alloc class PushBackContainer = /* some default */

class flat_set; My motivation is that these can perform somewhat better e.g. with an array (for circular_buffer), or auto_buffer (for flat_set/flat_map). I think even some very simply array wrapper would be useable with flat_set. The EA STL implementation has this features. What do you think? -Thorsten _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

However, we can make them faster if you allow a new template argument. For example template < typename T, typename Pred, typename Alloc class PushBackContainer = /* some default */

...

class flat_set;

My motivation is that these can perform somewhat better e.g. with an array (for circular_buffer), or auto_buffer (for flat_set/flat_map). I think even some very simply array wrapper would be useable with flat_set.

Interesting, but it seems that PushBackContainer and Allocator overlap. auto_buffer is basically an allocator. But flat_xxx could be implemented in any sequence container with random-access iterators (we need them for binary search), so maybe it could be interesting to have more generic classes like map_sequence<>, set_sequence (names are horrible I know, but it's just an example): template<class Sequence> class set_sequence; set_sequence<vector<T>> set_sequence<deque<T>> or something more similar to std::queue: template<class T, class Sequence> class set_sequence; Anyway, my opinion is that we should only use a minimal interface for Sequence ((r/c)begin,(r/c)end, insert, erase, clear()). Another option would be something like: template< class T , class Allocator , class Sequence = vector<T, A> > flat_set; and we should require (as we require for allocator::value_type) that Sequence::value_type is T and Sequence::allocator_type is Allocator.

The EA STL implementation has this features.

I will look at this. Is there any public

What do you think?

These days I don't have much time and I have other improvements with higher priority but I will add to the to-do list. Thanks, Ion