Re: Optimal time and space vector class

[Nathan Myers <ncm at cantrip dot org>]

On Fri, Apr 14, 2000 at 02:05:11PM +0200, Thomas Holenstein wrote:
>  > - is it exception-safe, according to the Standard requirement?
>  > - does it use allocators properly?
>  > - does it conform to the amortized-constant allocation time requirement?
>  > - does it take advantage of the empty-base space optimization supported
>  >       under -fnew-abi?
> I hope so.  Probably not right now...
> 
>  > Also, does it still use a continious block of memory [...]?
> Definitely not.  This obiviously is not possible with the worst case
> O(1) push_back method.  On the other hand, elements are never copied
> in memory.

This looks like an extremely useful library component.
However, we cannot use it in libstc++, for the reason
above.  (The committee is planning to formalize it.)

Instead, get in touch with the Boost group: www.boost.org
Give it a different name (stable_vector or something) and
submit it there.  They will be equally -- or more -- picky
about things like exception safety, and (in fact) they 
understand those things better.  It will probably get wider
use as a component of the Boost library than as an "alternative
std::vector", anyway.

Nathan Myers
ncm@cantrip.org