Re: [C++] Vectors & Dynamic allocation
From: Anand Hariharan (desh_bakth_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 04/30/04
- Next message: cat_at_wp.shawcable.net: "Me biteing my budgies head off"
- Previous message: Anand Hariharan: "Re: spawnvp still does not work"
- In reply to: Robert W Hand: "Re: [C++] Vectors & Dynamic allocation"
- Next in thread: Robert W Hand: "Re: [C++] Vectors & Dynamic allocation"
- Reply: Robert W Hand: "Re: [C++] Vectors & Dynamic allocation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 29 Apr 2004 16:59:30 -0700
Robert W Hand <rwhand@NOSPAMoperamail.com> wrote in message news:<iovt80phf4fkdq2dtikc0e8e82abju544n@4ax.com>...
> I agree that complexity requirements for
> std::vector::erase clearly prohibit deallocation of the elements.
>
Am unsure what the complexity requirements might have to do with the
deallocation of elements.
AFAICS, getting vector's erase to check if the elements need
deallocation etc mimics Garbage collection - a price a developer might
not be willing to pay. However, even if this were to be included, its
complexity would still be O(n), isn't it?
- Anand
PS: If my above post proclaims that I am clueless about the
standard's complexity requirements, so be it! :-)
- Next message: cat_at_wp.shawcable.net: "Me biteing my budgies head off"
- Previous message: Anand Hariharan: "Re: spawnvp still does not work"
- In reply to: Robert W Hand: "Re: [C++] Vectors & Dynamic allocation"
- Next in thread: Robert W Hand: "Re: [C++] Vectors & Dynamic allocation"
- Reply: Robert W Hand: "Re: [C++] Vectors & Dynamic allocation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]