Boost logo

Boost :

From: Herb Sutter (hsutter_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-12-08 10:45:44

Gret wrote:
>From: Herb Sutter <hsutter_at_[hidden]>
>> Greg wrote:
>> >I'm not sure whether we have a library issue or not,
>> Yes, but the issue is with vector<bool>, not with the iterator requirements.
>But vector<bool> can't be fixed, and can't be killed either.

Yeah. Bummer, eh? (This isn't a facetious comment: To harmonize the standard, we
must fix the container/allocator/iterator requirements, fix vector<bool>, or
kill vector<bool>. Those options are presenting in decreasing order of
difficulty. The first is impossible and will never happen IMO; hence "bummer,
eh?" that the only other two options "can't" be done.)

>I don't mind breaking libraries if it will help users, and I suspect
>that such libraries will eventually cone afoul of their users, if not
>the standard.

Neither do I, and Howard has already posted an anecdotal existence proof for
this problem, respectively.

>Just because we relax requirements on the iterators doesn't mean
>we have to relax them on the containers. I'm wanting to give more
>leeway to users of the algorithms, not to implementors of the

If you can come up with a change proposal that won't break user code, I'm sure
the LWG will be interested. I'm not arguing against this, I'm merely trying to
point out and describe the problem.


Herb Sutter (mailto:hsutter_at_[hidden])
CTO, PeerDirect Inc.                       (
Head of Delegation (Canada), ISO SC22/WG21 (ISO C++ standards committee)
Editor-in-Chief, C++ Report                (
Moderator, comp.lang.c++.moderated         (news:comp.lang.c++.moderated)

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at