|
|
Boost : |
From: Bjorn.Karlsson_at_[hidden]
Date: 2002-06-19 06:17:00
> From: Douglas Gregor [mailto:gregod_at_[hidden]]
>
> The STL containers also have this restriction, so I can only
> assume that the
> restriction was inherited.
>
True, but then again, the old rule "promise no less, require no more" could
be used without bending the STL container restrictions out-of-bounds too far
(pun intended). If array were to meet all of the requirements for
containers, I'd say that this change was bad, but as is, I think it's a good
idea.
[I've had an off-list conversation with Nicolai, and as I understand it
he'll be adding this to the wish/todo-list for array.]
Bjorn
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk