From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2002-10-03T04:24:55+09:00
Subject: Re: tuples versus arrays

On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 02:01:57PM +0900, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello Mauricio,
> 
> Monday, September 30, 2002, 11:04:12 PM, you wrote:
> 
> MF> If size is fixed (de)allocation can be made much faster and is
> MF> easily managed with a memory arena. 
> 
> it is another question. memory allocator is common to all classes, so
> it's his problem - fast allocation of small memory areas. your idea is
> only for case when class has ITS OWN memory sub-allocator

I was rather thinking of the common memory allocator using a separate
area (and algorithm) if it is told the memory for a n-sized tuple. 

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
  
People disagree with me.  I just ignore them.
	-- Linus Torvalds, regarding the use of C++ for the Linux kernel