Chris, Yes, you are right! It wasn't std::deque I had the problem with. In fact, it was std::map; specifically operator[](). Technically, I could work around that by using insert() and testing the return value and, if necessary, calling operator[](). But that's neither very elegant nor maintainable, in my opinion. Especially when I've yet to see a downside of adding a default constructor. Furthermore, I have other other container code that depends on default constructors. Sure, I could workaround period's lack of default constructor, but wheres the advantage in that? SB On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:31 AM, Chris Glover <c.d.glover@gmail.com> wrote:
But std::deque depends on (as does some of my other code) it's type
having
a default constructor. I'm surprised it does not already exists.
In what situation are you finding the std::deque requires an object to be default constructible? As far as I know this is simply not true for any std containers so I'd like to know how you've happened upon this.
-- chris
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Scott Bailey