From: Dave Harris (brangdon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-06 17:06:54
technews_at_[hidden] (Jonathan Turkanis) wrote (abridged):
> array can't be given constructors without sacrificing the aggregate
> initialization syntax.
OK... although I'd rather have constructors than aggregate initialisation
syntax. If the problem is performance, surely the compiler can optimise
away the difference (given that it's a standard library component with
Anyway, it sounds like this battle is already lost.
Is there a rational for not allowing zero-sized arrays? What is the
intended semantics of:
array<int> a; // Or array<int,0>.
assert( a.empty() );
? Isn't this kind of thing likely to occur in generic template code?
-- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk