From: Darin Adler (darin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-05 13:49:56
On 2/5/02 10:24 AM, "Synge Todo" <wistaria_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> I think that we should look into fixed_capacity_vector implementations
>>> that don't behave this way; for one thing, it would make them more
>>> compatible with vector, and for another, it would make them more efficient.
> I should confess that I've never thought about that. I have no idea
> if it's possible to implement it in such a way without using dynamic
It's possible; the main challenge is finding a way to portably declare a
member that's an array of the right amount of suitably-aligned raw memory.
>> I agree. The fixed-capacity vector should allocate raw memory, not T[N]. The
>> current implementation would be suitable for PODs only.
> By the way, what does 'POD' mean?
It means "plain old data". It's a concept used in the C++ standard to call
out structs that behave the same in both C and C++.
What Andrei meant in this case is that the current implementation would be
suitable only for classes with no constructor or destructor.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk