Peter Dimov wrote:
Adam Wulkiewicz wrote:
Why stick to this container? Why close this funcionality inside? You are all of the time debating about one case which should be handled differently.
I don't think that "potential number of elements not bounded by a compile-time constant" can be reasonably classified as "one use case", although you could legitimately argue that it should be handled differently. That is, that people are holding it wrong. I kind of sense that you're a bit frustrated at my holding it wrong. I also predict that many others will hold it wrong. This could be their own fault, or it could be a design issue.
One use case is "inserting run-time number of elements to the container which should store compile-time number of elements finished by throwing an exception". A workaround of a problem which is "exiting from some routine's internals at some point of execution in possibly unknown place". This will work with some routines and don't with others which treat exceptions differently. And you're saying that only one specific conainer is intended for this task because other won't throw an exception in this case. Regards, Adam