Boost logo

Boost :

From: christopher diggins (cdiggins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-31 15:12:47

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 3:37 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Boost Array Initialization Technique

> 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++
> <snip>
>> 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
> achieve. ;-)

Not if the semantics were changed so that size() returned 0 when the array
was unitialized (which I think would be an improvement). But fine, let's say
that won't happen until heck freezes over, do you have an opinion on the
fact that boost array has no constructors simply to support the rather
obscure syntax of:

boost::array a = { { 1, 2, 3; } } // notice two sets of { }

Christopher Diggins

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at