From: Mac Murrett (mmurrett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-05 16:33:06
On 2/5/02 3:29 PM, "Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On a larger scale, I believe this is not the right way to go, so I would
> actually oppose fixed_*. Proliferating all of STL's containers in each
> design direction (in this case, fixed capacity) is simply a losing approach.
> We'd end up where the smart pointers are - lots of them, but still quite
> often you'd have to write your own from scratch.
I completely agree with this assessment. auto_vector and fixed_vector (and
possibly vector, for that matter) could and should be one policy-based
class. After nailing this down, we can argue out the specifics of each
Furthermore, we can and should use policies from our future policy-based
smart pointers in our containers.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk