From: Matthew Wilson (mwilson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-13 21:09:15
This was - more clearly put - what I was wondering about.
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> From: "Pete Becker" <petebecker_at_[hidden]>
> > At 09:23 AM 6/13/2002 +1000, Matthew Wilson wrote:
> > >It seems like a good idea to just remove it from the next version of
> > >standard if there are no significant (or vocal) users of it
> > Standards are about stability. The only thing that could be done along
> > line would be to deprecate it in the next version of the standard, thus
> > warning people that it might go away in the subsequent version of the
> > standard.
> From: "Howard Hinnant" <hinnant_at_[hidden]>
> > Yes, I know of Metrowerks customers who use it, and depend on it being a
> > packed bit representation.
> The real question is: are there customers that use vector<T> in a generic
> algorithm and depend on the fact that, when T = bool, they get something
> that is radically different from the other vector instantiations?
> The problem is not that vector<bool> is useless; the problem is that it
> shadows the legitimate vector<bool> instantiation, and there is no way to
> get that back. It should be renamed, not deprecated or removed.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk