From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-12 01:50:05
"Pavel Chikulaev" <pavel.chikulaev_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| > | How else could they be implemented?
| > no idea.
| So, maybe then derive from runtime_error, despite not safe ctors,
| like from std containers?
| > | If you scap them, no additional algorithms are needed,
| > | or you didn't provide some? AFAIK all std algorithms works just fine
| > with
| > | ptr_vector<T>::iterators, I just don't see any reason they shouldn't.
| > no. you can't, eg., write sort() when the type is copyable (which is very
| > common).
| Now I see,
it will work on some libraries where it is guaranteed that a user defined swap
| I think we can't think that some algorithms are more important
| others, so we should implement them all.
well, I think there is a key number of few algorithms which cover
99.9 % or the use cases.
In partucular, I think
is good enough.
| Should they be implemented in namespace boost (for compilers that support
| Koenig lookup),
| or in namespace std as overloads?
they should be member functions to reflect their special semantics and to
the example of std::list..
| I can implement that algorithms, if you'd like to.
I've basically done it, but thanks anyway.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk