Boost logo

Boost :

From: Vincent Bherer-Roy (vbr.boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-25 16:27:02

On 5/25/06, AlisdairM <alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I have been thinking this over all day, and think another class is the
> most sensible solution - even if it means duplicating the
> implementation. The extra boolean value in the type is just too ugly!
> Open to suggestions on a name though, other than array2 or arrayex <g>



If we look forwards to C++0x and the new initialization syntax Bjarne
> proposed in Berlin, I think we can see a way to implement an array
> template with constructors, as the new sequence constructor should
> remove the limits of aggregate compatibility from us. The data()
> member will still allow us to pass the internal array as a POD to C
> APIs.
> Of course, once we allow for an array with constructors, we need to
> decide which constructors are most appropriate. Eg construction from
> an iterator range? Construction from a generator function? N copies
> of a give value?

I personnally want:

-default constructor
-copy constructor
-range constructor
-single value constructor (assigns the value to all the elements)
-constructor with N parameters (N being the size of the array)

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