From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-27 16:46:40
"Bob Bell" <belvis_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| > 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?
good question. I'm pretty sure that performace does prevent you from using
such a beast; so why bother ask the question.
| > the second reason is that value-based and OO programming are different and
| > best
| > kept seperate; there are different idioms, different parts of the langauge
| > 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?
he might; but the library is designed for use with OO; just like the "STL"
is not really designed for OO. making it better at one thing, makes it worse
at another thing;
you can't have both; that's life.
| 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.
so you would be against scoped_ptr being not copyable?
besides, there is no direct connection between what C++ allows you and
what a library written in C++ allows you.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk