Loïc Joly wrote:
From my point of view, the main drawback is that in the following code:
vector<double> v1(6); array<double, 6> v2;
v1's content is initialized, v2's content is not. In fact, array is about the only class I know of that as a default constructor that does not initialize member data to a legal and documented value. This I strongly dislike.
This was also mentioned during the standardisation process. I am more concerned that array< std::string, 6 > a1; array< double, 6 > a2; a1 inializes all its elements, a2 is not initialized at all.
By the way, I also dislike the fact that double d; does not initialize d, but at least people know that fundamental type do not behave well when initialization is concerned.
I hear you loud and clear! There is certainly a lot of work on the issue of initialization happening in the Standards committees right now, especially on the British panel. My interest in array is largely focussed on std::tr1 specification, and possibly adopting it in a future standard library. In that context, I do not want to see any changes until the language sorts out initialization in general.
From a Boost perspective: I am happier if array follows the TR1 specification, but should boost libraries be forever frozen once accepted into a standard TR? I am not sure on the answer to that.
AlisdairM