Re: [boost] Interest in StaticVector - fixed capacity vector

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" <pdimov-AT-pdimov.com> 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
http://www.boostpro.com