Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in StaticVector - fixed capacity vector
From: Matt Calabrese (rivorus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-11 20:21:29
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. <
> I'm presently against any throwing behavior related to resizing of a
> StaticVector/static_vector, since one can usually easily check the relevant
> preconditions themselves. Just assert. For those who want defined
> in resize overflow (or underflow) situations, I'd say derive or wrap. Some
> kind of policy template parameter could be possible, but right now it feels
> like that's an unnecessary complication on an otherwise relatively simple
> data structure.
> That's not to say I can't be dissuaded from this opinion.
My stance is that push_back, for instance, should throw if it goes beyond
capacity. This is primarily for consistency with other containers. I would
say, if it proves useful, to have a non-throwing version by a different name
in addition to push_back that has undefined behavior when going beyond the
capacity. This would be similar to how vectors have both the operator 
overload and the "at" member function.
-- -Matt Calabrese
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk