[review] The review of Boost.DoubleEnded starts today: September 21 - September 30
Dear users and members of Boost,
I'm proud to announce that the formal review of Benedek Thaler's
Boost.DoubleEnded library starts today, September 21, and runs through
September 30. This library is the result of Benedek's participation in
Google Summer of Code 2015.
Anyone is welcome to post a review and/or take part in subsequent
discussions on the boost developer list (see below for review guidelines).
This is a container library that provides two containers:
Both containers provides efficient push_front and push_back operations,
hence the name DoubleEnded.
The boost::devector class can be seen as an extension of std::vector
with efficient support for push_front (so boost::devector provides
contiguous storage). In addition, it provides a customizable small
buffer optimization like boost::small_vector(*).
It furthermore allows for customization of the growth factor such that
the user can decide if a reallocation should allocate 1.5 or 2 or
whatever more memory. And finally it provides new functionality that
does not exist in normal vector implementations -- this functionality
allow the class to excel in performance in certain situations like
serialization or transfer of data from sources that require a
The boost::batch_deque is similar to std::deque, but with two important
twists. Like std::deque, it provides reference stability when calling
push_front/push_back. Reference stability is crucial for programs that
uses intrusive containers e.g. using Boost.Intrusive (**).
boost::batch_deque has the following main advantages:
1. It allows the user to specify the segment size
2. It allows for external iteration over the segments
Taken together, they provide a very efficient and flexible basis for
intrusive containers. Access to the segments also increases performance
for tasks such as serialization. Finally, boost::batch_deque may be seen
as an efficient alternative to std::vector if you want to replace
a percent-wise memory overhead with a constant memory overhead and have
no need for contiguous storage.
Please provide in your review whatever information you think is
valuable to understand your final choice of ACCEPT or REJECT including
Fit as a Boost library. Please be explicit about your decision.
Some other questions you might want to consider answering:
- What is your evaluation of the design?
- What is your evaluation of the implementation?
- What is your evaluation of the documentation?
- What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
- Did you try to use the library? With which compiler(s)? Did you
have any problems?
- How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
reading? In-depth study?
- Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?