Boost logo

Boost :

From: Dave Harris (brangdon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-06 17:06:54

In-Reply-To: <d80h47$irf$1_at_[hidden]>
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
known semantics)?

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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at