6 Aug
2011
6 Aug
'11
8:46 p.m.
El 06/08/2011 20:00, Gordon Woodhull escribió:
On Aug 6, 2011, at 8:56 AM, Ion Gaztañaga<igaztanaga@gmail.com> wrote:
The problem is that flat_xxx take advantage of already implemented move semantics (insertions, etc.) from ::boost::container::vector. stable_vector has the same interface so it would be easy. The problem is to define the Concept (in post C++0x terms) flat_xxx::implementation should be based on.
I guess the obvious question is, does a vanilla c++0x vector fit the bill, and if not, what's missing?
Of course, but vector has a complex interface and I don't know if that would be an acceptable. We also need to define the C++03 subset for vector (with emulated move semantics). Ion