Re: [boost] [Root Pointer] New Documentation

On 04/10/2016 11:45 PM, Vladimir Batov wrote:

On 04/11/2016 01:32 PM, Phil Bouchard wrote:

...

On 04/10/2016 11:02 PM, Vladimir Batov wrote:

...

Phil,

Unfortunately you test below confirmed my suspicion. Now could you kindly explain how your library is better than:

template<typename T> struct manager { T* create(args) { all_.emplace_back(args); return &all_.back(); } void remove(T*) { ... }

std::list<T> all_; };

T* serves as your node_ptr -- all pointers are valid as long as its manager instance is around. What am I missing?

I am not sure if I understand the analogy correctly

Your library does memory and "node" life-time management. It shares node_ptrs around and guarantees them to be valid as long as its main root_ptr is around. root_ptr clears all node_ptrs when it is destroyed. The class above does the same.

...

but I can see that remove() will have to do a linear search in the list, slowing down the performance in general.

Well, we are not discussing the efficiency of my "implementation", are we? :-)

You asked how my library is better than yours so I'm scrutinizing all the details.

Still, if you insist... How about:

struct sort { bool operator(T const& p1, T const& p2) { return &p1 < &p2; } }

std::set all_;

Now "remove" won't need to do linear search.

It's still O(log(n)) whereas note_ptr is O(1).