Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Pavel Vasiliev wrote:
[...]
I really think that having the only mutex for all short smart
pointer-related interlocked operations will not harm performance of
real-life applications in mp systems. In my code this mutex is used
only for really short operations like
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Pavel Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
In my implementation of refc_ptr operator= performs
incrementing/decrementing within a single guarded section (since
the only global instance of interl. op.
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
(in short: Parameterization discourages users, Template parameters
affect the type, Having a single pointer type is important for
stable library interfaces. Sorry for possible out-of-context citation)
Your agreement with the statements above would naturally lead
Pavel Vasiliev wrote:
[...]
I really think that having the only mutex for all short smart
pointer-related interlocked operations will not harm performance of
real-life applications in mp systems. In my code this mutex is used
only for really short operations like lock, increment, save to
Pavel Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
Implementing of refc_ptr as a set of policies is also possible, but
currently that seems to be overkill, both in unnecessary
complexity and performance losses. Though this my opinion may
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 11:14 AM [GMT+1=CET],
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pavel Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
Implementing of refc_ptr as a set of policies is also possible, but
currently that seems to be
David B. Held wrote:
Pavel Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
Implementing of refc_ptr as a set of policies is also possible, but
currently that seems to be overkill, both in unnecessary
complexity and performance losses. Though
Dave Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
04dc01c2cd3a$219279c0$7901a8c0@penguin">news:04dc01c2cd3a$219279c0$7901a8c0@penguin...
[...]
Lots of ways. For example, the smart pointer objects could be
bigger than neccessary.
;) I'm working on it!
[...]
Type generators are overkill,
On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 1:00 PM [GMT+1=CET],
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Type generators are overkill, since unlike with iterator adaptors
there's no need to preserve type identity. Normal inheritance will
work just fine.
That's a good point. Do you think
Pavel Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Obviously you missed the delights of reading Karl May's Winnetou when
you
were a kid :o).
:-) Yes, I've missed this. I started to read in English not too long
time ago.
Same here, I didn't speak
David B. Held wrote:
Pavel Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
In my implementation of refc_ptr operator= performs
incrementing/decrementing within a single guarded section (since
the only global instance of interl. op. mutex
I would like to offer for discussion one more implementation of reference
counting smart pointer.
[snip]
Howgh!
Andrei
:-) In general, I agree with you. 1024-th smart pointer is 1023-rd
wheel reinvented. But The Best Wheel is still to be found.
Nevertheless, thanks for reply, even for the
Pavel Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
I would like to offer for discussion one more implementation of reference
counting smart pointer.
[snip]
Howgh!
Andrei
___
Unsubscribe other changes:
Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Pavel Vasiliev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
I would like to offer for discussion one more implementation of reference
counting smart pointer.
[snip]
Howgh!
Andrei
How do you pronounce that?
14 matches
Mail list logo
