From: Herb Sutter (hsutter_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-12-08 10:45:44
>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
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. (http://www.peerdirect.com) Head of Delegation (Canada), ISO SC22/WG21 (ISO C++ standards committee) Editor-in-Chief, C++ Report (http://www.creport.com) Moderator, comp.lang.c++.moderated (news:comp.lang.c++.moderated)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk