From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-31 16:00:56
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> christopher diggins wrote:
>> Not if the semantics were changed so that size() returned 0 when the
>> array was unitialized (which I think would be an improvement).
> boost::array is just supposed to give built-in arrays a container
> interface. Built-in arrays never have size 0, so I don't see why
> boost::arrays should.
Also, I think someone was telling me the other day how important it is that size
is known at compile-time ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk