Subject: Re: [boost] [container] static_vector: fixed capacity vector update
From: Adam Wulkiewicz (adam.wulkiewicz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-02-01 09:35:56
Krzysztof Czainski wrote:
> 2013/2/1 Adam Wulkiewicz <adam.wulkiewicz_at_[hidden]>
> Furthermore I'd like to share some news.
>>
>> We've decided to slightly change the character of this container and
>> highlight it's connection with array. Therefore we changed it's name
>> to varray (variable-size array). The implementation with "Strategy"
>> template parameter was moved to container_detail namespace. Exposed
>> class takes 2 template parameters, exactly like boost::array does.
>>
>> boost::container::varray<T, N> va;
...
>
>
> For the record, I'd rather the strategy was public. I can imagine using
> static_vector in a few places in the same project with different strategies:
> 1) In most places I'd probably use the default strategy.
> 2) At the time of optimizations I might want to disable all checking
> (asserts) only for one specific use. In practice we don't create separate
> debug/release builds, since we need the debug version to be fast enough
> anyway, and in some places this means disabling asserts.
> 3) In some cases temporary cases I might want logic errors to be thrown, so
> that the crash of an early version of one module doesn't crash the whole
> system.
>
> Also, I prefer the name static_vector, but that's just my personal approach
> - maybe I just got used to it ;-)
After the release of 1.53 when everybody has more free time we should
probably do some voting.
> Although, now that I think of 0-arg emplace_back(), that doesn't
> value-initialize types with a trivial constructor - does vector work like
> this too? If not, then it's a good argument towards the name varray ;-)
Yes, now elements' default ctors aren't called when they're of type with
trivial ctor. This is the case when using:
- varray(n)
- resize(n)
- emplace_back()
This of course may be changed in the future or it may be tweakable with
traits.
Regards,
Adam