S
Steven T. Hatton
I've encountered some design concepts lately which provide useful features,
but probably won't conform to certain STL guarantees such as no-throws on
certain operations, or supporting all the copy construction, or iterator
requirements. I believe any kind of container that makes it's way into the
Standard is either going to completely conform, or come very close.
tr1::array<> comes to mind as an example which, I believe, does not conform
100% to STL container requirements.
I have the sense that many C++ programmers believe every container type
should conform to the STL requirements. Is that a realistic observation?
Is it a good idea? Could there be another set of specified requirement for
a collection of library containers that would address a different design
need, and still provide predictable, reliable behavior?
but probably won't conform to certain STL guarantees such as no-throws on
certain operations, or supporting all the copy construction, or iterator
requirements. I believe any kind of container that makes it's way into the
Standard is either going to completely conform, or come very close.
tr1::array<> comes to mind as an example which, I believe, does not conform
100% to STL container requirements.
I have the sense that many C++ programmers believe every container type
should conform to the STL requirements. Is that a realistic observation?
Is it a good idea? Could there be another set of specified requirement for
a collection of library containers that would address a different design
need, and still provide predictable, reliable behavior?