Deque::fill

[chris jefferson]

Paolo Carlini wrote:
>
> +  template<typename _Tp, typename _Ref, typename _Ptr>
> +    struct _Deque_iterator;
> +
> +  template<typename _Tp, typename _Ref, typename _Ptr>
> +    void
> +    fill(const _Deque_iterator<_Tp, _Ref, _Ptr>& __first,
> +	 const _Deque_iterator<_Tp, _Ref, _Ptr>& __last, const _Tp& __value)
> +    {
> +      typedef typename _Deque_iterator<_Tp, _Ref, _Ptr>::_Self _Self;
> +
> +      for (typename _Self::_Map_pointer __node = __first._M_node + 1;
> +           __node < __last._M_node; ++__node)
> +	std::fill(*__node, *__node + _Self::_S_buffer_size(), __value);
> +
>   
On a similar note to some simplifications in vector, would it be better 
to "admit" that the size of a buffer is a compile-time constant, and 
make it a static const, rather than a function call?

I mainly ask as I had a look a while ago at simplifying deque in the 
case that the objects are big enough it "degrades" into a vector of 
pointers to pointers. While the best simplifications would require 
ABI-breaking, it's possible to overload things like operator++, 
operator+, etc on _Deque_iterators with simpler versions which the 
compiler doesn't seem capable of deducing by itself.

Chris