On May 27, 2005, at 4:45 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
But what for? If you want to print random values to stdout, it's easier to just use std::rand.
The quality of my generator is better than rand. :-)
Didn't we already go over this some years ago? The result was a proposed vector constructor that left its members uninitialized and then called a user-supplied function that initialized them.
<nod> Yeah, we really need to get that one in there.
And in any event, compressed_pair leaving its members uninitialized when std::pair doesn't is a pretty elegant way to sneak bugs into innocent people's code when they aren't looking. An <evil laugh> would be entirely appropriate here as well. ;-)
True, but fixing std::pair to do the right thing would break backwards compatibility. :-) On May 27, 2005, at 4:48 PM, JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
IMHO, std::pair default ctor should be defined as
pair():first(),second(){}
We've got you covered on that one: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html#265 -Howard