From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-27 16:10:08
JOAQUIN LOPEZ MU?Z wrote:
> IMHO, std::pair default ctor should be defined as
>
> pair():first(),second(){}
This doesn't change things. pair() {} is what you probably want.
What can I say, I'm glad that your and Howard's view didn't prevail when
std::pair was being defined. If I had it MY way,
typedef set<int> int_set;
pair<int_set::iterator,int_set::iterator> p;
would have compiled on no compiler because int_set::iterator wouldn't even
have had a default constructor.
(Your code will probably fail at runtime on most debugging STLs, by the
way.)