Re: Why is `Appender._data` a pointer to its `Data`-store?
On 10/17/20 12:00 AM, Paul Backus wrote: On Saturday, 17 October 2020 at 00:06:31 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: Appender is ref counted IIRC. It's not; it uses the GC. Oh yeah. In fact, it was me who did that (in 2010!). My point should have been that the appender is a pImpl to avoid memory corruption. If you have multiple copies of an appender, and each has its own idea of what the capacity is, then you will get corruption. See the original bug report here: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4681 -Steve
Re: Why is `Appender._data` a pointer to its `Data`-store?
On Saturday, 17 October 2020 at 00:06:31 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: Appender is ref counted IIRC. -Steve It's not; it uses the GC.
Re: Why is `Appender._data` a pointer to its `Data`-store?
On 10/16/20 5:40 PM, Per Nordlöw wrote: Why is `Appender`'s store `Data` put directly as `private Data* _data;` instead of `private Data _data;` ? Removing the pointer indirection would give better locality. If it's about optimizing for empty `Appender`s then a `Appender*` should be used in those cases instead. Appender is ref counted IIRC. -Steve
Why is `Appender._data` a pointer to its `Data`-store?
Why is `Appender`'s store `Data` put directly as `private Data* _data;` instead of `private Data _data;` ? Removing the pointer indirection would give better locality. If it's about optimizing for empty `Appender`s then a `Appender*` should be used in those cases instead.
