Nigel Stewart
Just curious if this container might be better suited to sorting (and re-sorting) than a std::vector.
btree_seq is better than vector in insert/delete intensive applications. Since sorting does not require insert/delete, btree_seq will be comparable (but slower) with vector in sorting.
And, I guess, for containers of large structs that are relatively expensive to copy or swap by value?
I expect that after including btree_seq into boost, ptr_btree_seq will be built upon the btree_seq, like ptr_vector upon vector. Leaves of ptr_btree_seq will physically contain only pointers to the large objects, but the container will have the same interface as btree_seq. (This should not take much effort, since ptr_* implementation already exists for vector.)