Re: [boost] Re: compressed_pair requirements?

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-27 16:10:08

JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:

> IMHO, std::pair default ctor should be defined as
>
> pair():first(),second(){}

This doesn't change things. pair() {} is what you probably want.

What can I say, I'm glad that your and Howard's view didn't prevail when 
std::pair was being defined. If I had it MY way,

typedef set<int> int_set;
pair<int_set::iterator,int_set­::iterator> p;

would have compiled on no compiler because int_set::iterator wouldn't even 
have had a default constructor.

(Your code will probably fail at runtime on most debugging STLs, by the 
way.)