Re: Suggestion: auto_ary

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-09 14:52:31

on 1/8/01 5:54 PM, Howard Hinnant at hinnant_at_[hidden] wrote:

[SNIP my inappropriate complaints]
> I think you've misunderstood my intent.  I originally posted this thread
> to comp.lang.c++ with the statement:

Oops.

>> I'm thinking along the lines of this being part of the next C++
>> standard. But it needs lots more field testing and thought than I can
>> give it alone. 
> 
> I'm happy to discuss it here on boost as well (as William suggested by
> forwarding my post).  But I'm still thinking of this as a proposed
> addition to the standard.  I'm not concerned about the rules that
> disallow clients from adding stuff to namespace std.  Nor am I concerned
> about non-compliant compilers.  I realize that this only partially fits
> into the boost "topic".  And if boosters think this is not appropriate
> for boost, I fully understand.

OK.

> However I think William's motivation for bringing this to boost was to
> see if people thought that the technique might have value to boost's
> existing smart pointers.  And that aspect seems fully on topic.

I guess so.  I don't follow the smart pointer stuff that much.  I guess
array support would help, but the manner of doing it still seems hackish.
(Changing semantics by using a incomplete variant of a type you would
normally use with the class.)

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT mac DOT com