Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Interest in StaticVector - fixed capacity vector
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-16 07:38:42

on Sun Oct 16 2011, "Peter Dimov" <> wrote:

> Dave Abrahams wrote:
>> In the wider use-cases why isn't "fall back to the heap" the right thing
>> to do?
> I've no idea. To avoid denial of service, perhaps. Or perhaps the
> processing code after that is limited to a specific size anyway for
> performance reasons, so it makes no sense to collect more values.

Seems like this is a low-level component upon which one might build
containers with higher-level fallback behaviors (like throwing, or
ASSERTing, or dynamic allocation). So, we're back to policies now?

Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing

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