6 Jun
2005
6 Jun
'05
10:06 p.m.
In-Reply-To: <d80h47$irf$1@sea.gmane.org> technews@kangaroologic.com (Jonathan Turkanis) wrote (abridged):
array can't be given constructors without sacrificing the aggregate initialization syntax.
OK... although I'd rather have constructors than aggregate initialisation syntax. If the problem is performance, surely the compiler can optimise away the difference (given that it's a standard library component with known semantics)? Anyway, it sounds like this battle is already lost. Is there a rational for not allowing zero-sized arrays? What is the intended semantics of: array<int> a; // Or array<int,0>. assert( a.empty() ); ? Isn't this kind of thing likely to occur in generic template code? -- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK.