From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-31 14:37:10
christopher diggins wrote:
> The fact that the Boost array class does not support constructors in
> favour of the limited and somewhat obscure aggregate initialization
> syntax has me concerned. IMO it would be much more flexible and
> powerful to support overloading of the comma operator. The following
> works on Visual C++
> This is much more flexible and it allows us to have constructors in
> boost::array thus making it a full reversible container.
Are you saying you want boost::array to satisfy the requirements in Table 65?
I think the postconditions for the expressions "X u" and "X()" will be hard to
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk