From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-31 11:12:58
"Gennaro Prota" <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:44:42 -0700, "Jonathan Turkanis"
> <technews_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >The current array sizing facility is not standard-conforming. I
> >Thorsten is going to fix it, but it doesn't look like he has yet.
> A conforming implementation is really two lines of code. It's fun to
> write, but admittedly of limited usefulness, in that I would think
> properly designed code the needed number of elements would be
> exposed through a named constant. So, the only cases where I can
> imagine this to be useful is either when you need the count of the
> array to play some unorthodox trick, or when you have third-party
> that "forgot" to expose the right constant.
Well, I can't really argue with that. But it seemes that a conforming
implementation would be better than a non-conforming one.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk