2013/2/1 Adam Wulkiewicz <adam.wulkiewicz@gmail.com>
2013/1/31 Krzysztof Czainski <1czajnik@gmail.com>:
2013/1/17 Andrew Hundt <athundt@gmail.com>
Hello, Thanks for working on static_vector, I'm already using it.
Everything works, with a little fix I needed. Here's the problem (disclamer: tested with a more complicated example, not the one below):
static_vector<int,3> v; v.emplace_back(); // compile time error
My fix is adding an overload for static_vector_detail::construct, patch attached.
Ok, thanks. It's fixed now.
Thanks. Furthermore I'd like to share some news.
We've decided to slightly change the character of this container and highlight it's connection with array. Therefore we changed it's name to varray (variable-size array). The implementation with "Strategy" template parameter was moved to container_detail namespace. Exposed class takes 2 template parameters, exactly like boost::array does.
boost::container::varray<T, N> va;
It may be found here: http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/varray/
For the record, I'd rather the strategy was public. I can imagine using static_vector in a few places in the same project with different strategies: 1) In most places I'd probably use the default strategy. 2) At the time of optimizations I might want to disable all checking (asserts) only for one specific use. In practice we don't create separate debug/release builds, since we need the debug version to be fast enough anyway, and in some places this means disabling asserts. 3) In some cases temporary cases I might want logic errors to be thrown, so that the crash of an early version of one module doesn't crash the whole system. Also, I prefer the name static_vector, but that's just my personal approach - maybe I just got used to it ;-) Although, now that I think of 0-arg emplace_back(), that doesn't value-initialize types with a trivial constructor - does vector work like this too? If not, then it's a good argument towards the name varray ;-) Cheers, Kris