From: Synge Todo (wistaria_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-08 05:00:17
From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 15:27:33 -0800
> > On the other hand the
> > policy based vector is at the moment an idea without any plans for a
> > concrete implementation?
> I pointed two categories of problems with fixed_capacity_vector: one is
> design-related, the other refers to the implementation. You comment on the
> design side of things only. At least I think the implementation of that
> limited design ought to be up to snuff. It is not.
I have rewritten my fixed_capacity_vector class to solve the second
problem (construction of non-POD objects).
I believe that non-POD objects are now constructed and destructed in a
proper way. As for the alignment problem, however, I'm not sure if
the current implementation is portable or not. I will greatly
appreciate comments and suggestions from all of you on this point.
If there is no implementation problem in the current code, I will
start to rewrite fixed_capacity_deque too.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk