-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 113
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Feature Request: Support emplacing multiple elements with the same constructor arguments into vectors #172
Comments
I assume you want to to copy arguments for each newly created object, right? Moving seems problematic...
|
That's a good question. Ideally, I would assume the arguments would be perfectly forwarded, but I can see this could cause problems when inserting more than one element. I suppose, forwarding rvalues as const references when N > 1 is the right way to go. When N == 1 perfect forwarding would make more sense. Or, put it another way, all elements but the last one should be constructed with forwarding rvalues as const references, and the last one - with perfect forwarding. |
Consider a case when we have a non-default-constructibe type, which we want to store in a vector (any flavor of the supported by Boost.Container). In order to allocate N elements in the vector, one has to create one template object, which is then used to copy-construct elements:
This can be problematic if
A
is not copy-constructible or is expensive to copy. A better solution would be to directly emplace N elements from the user-provided constructor arguments:This construction would be useful also because there is no easy way to achieve this with raw arrays, statically or dynamically allocated. Currently, one has to separately allocate storage and inplace-construct elements, with the careful fallback in case of exception, and do the reverse on destruction.
The same extension could be made for
insert
:This could be emulated by a loop of
emplace
calls, but this is less efficient than the dedicated methods. In particular, theemplace
loop would unnecessarily move elements and reallocate memory.PS: The method names are given for illustration, I'm not attached to them.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: