Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in StaticVector - fixed capacity vector
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-15 11:00:17
Dave Abrahams wrote:
> If we can figure out how to get cars to bounce harmlessly out of
> collisions we could decide to make it legal to ignore stop signs and
> just count on the bounce to handle it. Should we?
Cars are cars, and static_vector::push_back is, well,
static_vector::push_back. They have nothing in common. You can't
mechanically apply the same rule to both. push_back throwing doesn't imply
operator throwing, for example. Their uses are different. A throwing
static_vector::push_back enables existing algorithms that use push_back or
back_inserter to continue to work without their behavior becoming undefined.
A throwing static_vector::operator... does not enable anything. :-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk