Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in StaticVector - fixed capacity vector
From: Olaf van der Spek (ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-12 12:03:28
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Matt Calabrese <rivorus_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> To be clear, I do agree that in most cases a user would often prefer the
> unchecked version (just as how in practice, a user may often be able to use
> operator rather than at()), I only disagree on the name of that function.
> Perhaps unchecked_push_back is a nasty name, but that can be changed.
What about algorithms that call push_back, like back_inserter?
Will you provide them as well?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk