C++

compile problem
The post I submitted at 6:34 today was answered in a thread started by zade on 12/28/2007. I apologize for not checking first. James Jennings -- [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] ... 11 Jan 2008 02:17

compile problem
The template in the code below is from "The C++ Programming Language, Special Edition, Bjarne Stroustrup (c)2000, page 53. I used it in a program I wrote several years ago, and it compiled with no problem. I recently downloaded the Quincy 2005 C/C++ IDE. The MingW compiler that Quincy uses gives the errors shown ... 11 Jan 2008 02:17

std::deque typically faster then std::list for push_back(), front(), pop_front()?
On 10 Sty, 16:08, "Victor V. Terber" <VTer...(a)gmail.com> wrote: Does such a replacement of list by deque seem reasonable? Would you typically expect real-world performance changes? I wouldn't be surprised [*] to see a performance improvement in this case. One of the most expensive operations is a memory all... 10 Jan 2008 17:25

std::deque typically faster then std::list for push_back(), front(), pop_front()?
Victor V. Terber wrote: In existing sources I found a std::list using only methods push_back(), front() and pop_front(). I'm considering to replace the list by std::deque. It seems to be used as a FIFO. For that, there is std::queue<>, which is itself a wrapper around a container. This doesn't change the c... 10 Jan 2008 17:25

std::deque typically faster then std::list for push_back(), front(), pop_front()?
Victor V. Terber wrote: Does such a replacement of list by deque seem reasonable? Would you typically expect real-world performance changes? If properly implemented, ordinary lists and doubly-linked lists have the same performance characteristics for common operations. The only advantage of a doubly-linked... 10 Jan 2008 17:25

std::deque typically faster then std::list for push_back(), front(), pop_front()?
Victor V. Terber ha scritto: In existing sources I found a std::list using only methods push_back(), front() and pop_front(). I'm considering to replace the list by std::deque. The usual rule of thumb to use the simplest container that does the job seems to apply here. I'm aware that the standard doe... 10 Jan 2008 17:25

std::deque typically faster then std::list for push_back(), front(), pop_front()?
In existing sources I found a std::list using only methods push_back(), front() and pop_front(). I'm considering to replace the list by std::deque. The usual rule of thumb to use the simplest container that does the job seems to apply here. I'm aware that the standard doesn't say much about performance behavior,... 10 Jan 2008 10:24

I was wondering why h file is needed?
I was wondering why h file is needed? I heard it is because in h file the compiler discover what memory is needed for allocation. is that true? thank -- [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ] [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ] ... 10 Jan 2008 10:24

basic_stringstream memory management
Hello, I have a question about basic_stringstream's memory management. If a user-specified allocator is supplied in the instantiation, e.g. typedef std::basic_stringstream<char, std::char_traits<char>, boost::pool_allocator<char> > xstringstream; would the basic_stringstream use the supplied allocator or w... 9 Jan 2008 11:07

Policy and Typedef
I need a policy that can call back the main interface. I tried with the following code but I do not understand why I cannot access the member T::Type (see commented code) in some cases but not in others. I get the same error on VC and GCC (see below). Is there a nice way to fix this? struct MyPolicy { temp... 10 Jan 2008 09:51