Re: [boost] [Containers] Should flat_* expose implementation vector?

Subject: Re: [boost] [Containers] Should flat_* expose implementation vector?
From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-06 16:46:00

El 06/08/2011 20:00, Gordon Woodhull escribió:
>
>
> On Aug 6, 2011, at 8:56 AM, Ion Gaztañaga<igaztanaga_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
>> The problem is that flat_xxx take advantage of already implemented
>> move semantics (insertions, etc.) from ::boost::container::vector.
>> stable_vector has the same interface so it would be easy. The
>> problem is to define the Concept (in post C++0x terms)
>> flat_xxx::implementation should be based on.
>
> I guess the obvious question is, does a vanilla c++0x vector fit the
> bill, and if not, what's missing?

Of course, but vector has a complex interface and I don't know if that 
would be an acceptable. We also need to define the C++03 subset for 
vector (with emulated move semantics).

Ion