----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 3:37 PM Subject: [boost] Re: Boost Array Initialization Technique
christopher diggins wrote:
The fact that the Boost array class does not support constructors in favour of the limited and somewhat obscure aggregate initialization syntax has me concerned. IMO it would be much more flexible and powerful to support overloading of the comma operator. The following works on Visual C++
<snip>
This is much more flexible and it allows us to have constructors in boost::array thus making it a full reversible container.
Are you saying you want boost::array to satisfy the requirements in Table 65?
I think the postconditions for the expressions "X u" and "X()" will be hard to achieve. ;-)
Not if the semantics were changed so that size() returned 0 when the array was unitialized (which I think would be an improvement). But fine, let's say that won't happen until heck freezes over, do you have an opinion on the fact that boost array has no constructors simply to support the rather obscure syntax of: boost::array a = { { 1, 2, 3; } } // notice two sets of { } Christopher Diggins