From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-27 16:52:08
On May 27, 2005, at 4:45 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> But what for? If you want to print random values to stdout, it's
> easier to just use std::rand.
The quality of my generator is better than rand. :-)
> Didn't we already go over this some years ago? The result was a
> proposed vector constructor that left its members uninitialized and
> then called a user-supplied function that initialized them.
<nod> Yeah, we really need to get that one in there.
> And in any event, compressed_pair leaving its members uninitialized
> when std::pair doesn't is a pretty elegant way to sneak bugs into
> innocent people's code when they aren't looking. An <evil laugh> would
> be entirely appropriate here as well. ;-)
True, but fixing std::pair to do the right thing would break backwards
On May 27, 2005, at 4:48 PM, JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
> IMHO, std::pair default ctor should be defined as
We've got you covered on that one:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk