Re: [boost] Interest in StaticVector - fixed capacity vector

on Sun Oct 16 2011, "Peter Dimov" <pdimov-AT-pdimov.com> wrote:

Dave Abrahams wrote:

...

In the wider use-cases why isn't "fall back to the heap" the right thing to do?

I've no idea. To avoid denial of service, perhaps. Or perhaps the processing code after that is limited to a specific size anyway for performance reasons, so it makes no sense to collect more values.

Seems like this is a low-level component upon which one might build containers with higher-level fallback behaviors (like throwing, or ASSERTing, or dynamic allocation). So, we're back to policies now? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com