> From: Douglas Gregor [mailto:gregod@cs.rpi.edu]
>
> The STL containers also have this restriction, so I can only
> assume that the
> restriction was inherited.
>

True, but then again, the old rule "promise no less, require no more" could be used without bending the STL container restrictions out-of-bounds too far (pun intended). If array were to meet all of the requirements for containers, I'd say that this change was bad, but as is, I think it's a good idea.

[I've had an off-list conversation with Nicolai, and as I understand it he'll be adding this to the wish/todo-list for array.]

Bjorn