RE: [boost] Re: Re: Boost Array Initialization Technique

From: Paul A Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-06 11:18:38

| -----Original Message-----
| From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
| [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Dave Harris
| Sent: 05 June 2005 15:18
| To: boost_at_[hidden]
| Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Re: Boost Array Initialization Technique
| 
| In-Reply-To: <d7iigr$7tn$1_at_[hidden]>
| technews_at_[hidden] (Jonathan Turkanis) wrote (abridged):
| > 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.
| 
| Surely built-in arrays can have size 0? For example:
| 
|     int n = 0;
|     int *array = new int[n];
| 
| In my experience it is important to handle zero edge-cases 
| correctly and 
| uniformly. I have been reading:
|   http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2003/n1479.html
| 
| and I don't understand the reasoning there. Personally I'd 
| rather change 
| the language so that:
| 
|      const int n = 0;
|      int array[n];
| 
| was acceptable too, making the static case consistent with 
| the dynamic 
| case and both consistent with n>0. 

I agree with this strongly.

And the best way to deal with default initialisation is to remove it
completely.

A recent 'quiz' of the UK BSI C++ panel reveal that it is so confusing that
even above averagely 'experts' often get it wrong - or fail to agree what
the right answer is!)

This is a big language change, but a vital one IMO.

Paul

Paul A Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB
[phone]  [phone]
mailto: pbristow_at_[hidden]