Re: [boost] [containers] Are there flat_map/set and stable_vector proposals at work?

Subject: Re: [boost] [containers] Are there flat_map/set and stable_vector proposals at work?
From: Klaim - Joël Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-23 11:57:50

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:07 PM, TONGARI J <tongari95_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> I wonder if we can choose the underlying container for flat_xxx, for
> example, use deque instead of vector.
> Or would it be better to make them as adaptors?
>

That would be a different question for the container implementor.
Experience shows that having the implementation type as a parameter is
rarely a good idea.
Having a vector as implementation is far enough for me right now but I
don't really care as long as the flat_* behaviour and performance are
similar.
I'm not sure what a deque would enable in this case.