Boost logo

Boost :

From: Nicolai Josuttis (nico_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-05-26 10:14:26

Thomas Holenstein wrote:
> Hello,
> OK, here are some suggestions about Nico's array class.
> Some of them might have been discussed before. So please
> ignore these.
> I think
> - rangecheck should be private (Does the aggregate
> restriction does hold for methods?)
it IS an aggregate restriction

> - an array<int, N> should be comparable to a array<short, N>,
> so we probably need more templatized versions of operator==,
> operator<, etc.

> - an array<int, N> should be comparable to an array<int, M>,
> returnig false (I'm not sure of this...)
no, I don't think so. This won't even compile because these
are different types and that's fine. For anything else
we have STL algorithms.

> - sometimes it would be useful to have full grown iterators,
> instead of just pointers. (see for example the libstdc++-v3
> faq on )
of course. This is just ONE implementation that (as it is usual
in the STL) prefers speed over safety.
May be other iterators should optionally be provided
(via preprocessor).

> - Why do you include <iterator>?
for reverse_iterator stuff

> - I think Jeremy's right, use mismatch for !=. It's faster.
> Furthermore I suggest not making it an aggregate: after
> all, if you want a array of 1000 Elements of a class which
> has no default constructur, you could get quite busy.
> Otherwise it would be possible to have a constructor
> array<..>(const T& elem = T())
I tend to agree.
Let's see how others think in the next couple of weeks.

> Thomas
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Find long lost high school friends:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nicolai M. Josuttis 
Solutions in Time        	mailto:solutions_at_[hidden]

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