Boost logo

Boost :

From: joel de guzman (djowel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-12 00:15:08

----- Original Message -----
From: "David Abrahams" :

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "joel de guzman" <djowel_at_[hidden]>
> >
> > I think the problem is that C incorrectly combined the notion of
> > pointers and iterators (and even arrays) in one whole uncanny mix.
> > Are we trying to commit the same mistake again?
> Too late: RandomAccessIterator already requires operator[]. At no small
> cost, BTW: see the iterator_adaptors library docs for a discussion of the
> limitiations!

So why propagate the mistake? Why do we need a smart-pointer
with iterator/array semantics when we have iterators and containers.
Vector not efficient enough? Why not just use a small and fast buffer
class with array semantics and the efficiency of fixed C malloced
arrays? Popular demand does not justify another mistake.


PS> My opinions only... |:+
2c worth and may even be worthless.

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