Nevin Liber wrote:
On 12 December 2012 18:30, Marshall Clow <mclow.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Dec 12, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Olaf van der Spek <ml@vdspek.org> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 11:57 PM, Nevin Liber <nevin@eviloverlord.com> wrote:
static_vector<T, N, A = std::allocator<T>>
And you could provide null_allocator_assert and null_allocator_throw as options (or make one of those the default), as it is now the responsibility of the allocator, not static_vector, to throw or not throw.
To me, that's a different container.
Why? How is it behaviorally any different, assuming you give it a null_allocator?
I agree with Marshall. You can understand 'hybrid' in at least two ways. As I understand it hybrid_vector would have some static storage and allocate new memory only if the number of elements is too big. If Alloc parameter were used then your implementation of a static_vector could become a simple static_vector or a hybrid_vector (or a vector depends on implementation). This kind of container may be simply implemented on top of those containers. What is more, probably only the minority of users will find a use case for it. And the rest will just take a simple static_vector and build a container they need. Regards, Adam