Subject: Re: [boost] [date_time] default constructor for period?
From: Scott Bailey (Bailey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-05-01 11:55:18
Yes, you are right! It wasn't std::deque I had the problem with. In fact,
it was std::map; specifically operator(). Technically, I could work
around that by using insert() and testing the return value and, if
necessary, calling operator(). But that's neither very elegant nor
maintainable, in my opinion. Especially when I've yet to see a downside of
adding a default constructor.
Furthermore, I have other other container code that depends on default
constructors. Sure, I could workaround period's lack of default
constructor, but wheres the advantage in that?
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Chris Glover <c.d.glover_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > But std::deque depends on (as does some of my other code) it's type
> > a default constructor. I'm surprised it does not already exists.
> In what situation are you finding the std::deque requires an object to be
> default constructible? As far as I know this is simply not true for any
> std containers so I'd like to know how you've happened upon this.
> -- chris
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
-- Scott Bailey
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk