Hi Nigel, Nigel Stewart wrote:
> > So the issue here seems to be whether a cyclic_buffer > should be circular-list-like or FIFO-like. Given > that there is already a queue container adapter, > perhaps it's worth listing some applications > of cyclic_buffer that depend on either > circular-list-like or FIFO-like semantics. I designed the cyclic_buffer mainly for adding the elements at the end of the container and automatic removal of elements from the beginning - it is just plain FIFO, nothing else. I don't want to add elements at the beginning. I think it will be less confusing - just keep it rather simple. > > > Could a queue adaptor using a cyclic_buffer instead > of a deque provide the explicitly FIFO-like mode of > operation? (While leaving cyclic_buffer to be > circular-list-like?) Queue cannot use the cyclic_buffer because the queue's size is not restricted. Probably I don't understand this question. > > > >> Semantics of resize should probably follow vector: > >> 1. The capacity is implicitly adjusted to fit the > >> requested size. > > http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/Vector.html > > vector::resize > > Inserts or erases elements at the end such that > the size becomes n. > > (I think a developer may find it surprising for a > cyclic_buffer::resize to be clamped to the capacity.) > OK, you're right. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
