RFC: naming for FrontTransversal and Transversal ranges

[Denis Koroskin]

On Sat, 02 May 2009 18:08:30 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> Robert Jacques wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 May 2009 03:35:51 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu  
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Robert Jacques wrote:
>>>>> No, repeated allocations are trivial to eliminate. I didn't even  
>>>>> bother to explain that in the article. The loop must only refill the  
>>>>> allocated object from the object that needs to be replaced.
>>>>  putting the test in the pseudo code for this would've help my  
>>>> understanding.
>>>>  if(copy is null)
>>>>     copy = s.deepDup;
>>>> else
>>>>     s.deepDupTo(copy);
>>>
>>> copy = cast(T*) GC.malloc(T.sizeof);
>>> do {
>>>      overwrite(s, copy);
>>>      copy.modify;
>>> } while (!cas(copy, s));
>>  I'm confused. The article talks about copying the entire data  
>> structure, not just a node/etc. And trees, etc tend to have variable  
>> sizes, etc.
>
> You can reuse memory even if it comprehends more complex patterns than  
> one single allocation.
>
> Andrei

I *highly* doubt it is worth the trouble. Most likely, this container won't be lock-free and scalable anymore. Performance will also degrade dramatically.

Besides, the more I think about thread-local/shared separation that is going to come to D2, the more I see that there is absolutely no need to make Phobos containers thread-safe. Most containers will be thread-local and won't need any synchronization at all.