Boost logo

Boost :

From: Hans Dembinski (hans.dembinski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-09-10 11:25:02

> On 10. Sep 2019, at 12:19, wrote:
> "Hans Dembinski via Boost" <boost_at_[hidden]> – 10 septembre 2019 11:07
>> This was probably discussed here before, but could someone remind me why
>> static_string and static_vector need to exist as separate containers at all?
>> Why don't we use a boost::vector and boost::string with a special allocator
>> that offers a fixed-sized memory pool allocated from the stack?
> This is how static_vector is implemented, afaik.

You are right,

It would be nice if dtl::static_vector_allocator was part of the public interface.

It seems that static_vector could just be an alias template in C++11.

> The main drawback is that it makes static_vector not trivially_copyable even for trivial T. I ended up reimplementing a custom static_vector for this reason only.
> I don't think it makes much sense to have a static_string which is not trivially copyable (which would probably be the case if using a specialization with an allocator).

That is an interesting point.

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