Not really sure why they reimplemented std::list. Also that NoCopy base class adds a vptr for no reason. And so do all those other virtual destructors. I personally wouldn't trust this code at first glance.
The reason for the specific implementation is to get constant time removal and remove-add_to_end operations. Truth be told, it is a hold-over from the previous implementation. I shall be writing benchmarks for this next up and shall revisit the decision on whether or not to use std::list soon-ish :)
The : private NoCopy is just to block the copy constructors.
cache.remove(const Key& k, F deleteCallback) method.
Thanks for the feedback
with the std::list, everytime I refreshed a node... i did a copy.
basically to the tune of list.push_back(*iter) where as I wanted to keep it as a simple unlink and relink of the node
copy of the comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12391069
keys_.splice(keys_.begin(), keys_, iter->second);
Where iter is from the cache lookup.
If its C++11 why not just use the delete keyword to prevent auto generating members ?
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/list:
"std::list is a container that supports constant time insertion and removal of elements from anywhere in the container."
'The : private NoCopy is just to block the copy constructors."
But does it need a virtual destructor?
#define DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN(TypeName) \
TypeName(TypeName&) = delete; \
void operator=(TypeName) = delete;