On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 12:45:05PM +0100, Martin Stjernholm wrote:
> Unfortunately it seems you're right. I'm sorry for the misinformation.
> The behavior I described only applies to multisets; I thought mappings
> were fixed to behave similarly.
what exactly is being fixed here?
> But in cases where an implicit deferred copy is unwanted overhead, it
> cannot be avoided with the current mapping behavior.
you mean, it can't be avoided because the mapping is set copy-on-write?
so the fix is to avoid copy-on-write (but introduce undetermined
behavior for new elements as a (maybe minor) downside. is that correct?
how does the copy-on-write work? wouldn't the m_delete like in stephens
example also trigger that?
greetings, martin.
--
cooperative communication with sTeam - caudium, pike, roxen and unix
offering: programming, training and administration - anywhere in the world
--
pike programmer working in china community.gotpike.org
unix system- iaeste.(tuwien.ac|or).at open-steam.org
administrator caudium.org is.schon.org
Martin Bähr http://www.iaeste.or.at/~mbaehr/
|