From: Bob Bell (belvis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-27 16:20:03
Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto <at> cs.auc.dk> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <dave <at> boost-consulting.com> wrote in message
> news:uacnkw0cr.fsf <at> boost-consulting.com...
> | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto <at> cs.auc.dk> writes:
> | > Pick up you're favourite book on OO and on STL and see if the
> | > programming techniques look alike.
> | That's a very parsimonious explanation. It would be nice if you'd try
> | to make it a bit clearer in the context of the question of duplicating
> | objects, and show how it justifies a choice to prohibit ptr_containers
> | from acting like proper values.
> the first reason must be its damn expensive without move-semantics.
So is std::vector<std::map<std::vector<std::string>, std::set<int> > >,
std::vector<int> >. Should the standard library prevent users from using
copy construct/copy assignment syntax with this data structure?
> the second reason is that value-based and OO programming are different and are
> kept seperate; there are different idioms, different parts of the langauge is
> being used.
How do you know ptr_containers will be used in OO contexts? Why can't a user
use such containers to simply keep track of values?
One of the great strengths of C++ is that it doesn't try to force the
programmer into any one programming paradigm. Your justification for
denying ordinary copy syntax is against this spirit.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk