From: Simon Buchan (simon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-03 19:03:09
Ian McCulloch wrote:
> Boris wrote:
>>"Pavel Vozenilek" <pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden]>,
>>>How would such dynamic_array be better (different) than std::vector?
>>
>>I wouldn't say it's better. It would be just a bit more suitable in a
>>situation where you know that you will deal with a fixed number of
>>elements at runtime. The interface would be probably similar to
>>std::vector but without inserting/removing operations. While std::vector
>>is the natural choice when you need a dynamic array and boost::array when
>>you know the (fixed) size at compile time this new array type (whatever
>>the name would be) would be chosen when you know the (fixed) size only at
>>runtime.
>
> You still have not stated what advantages such a container would have over a
> resizable container. In other words, if you omit the resize() et. al. from
> std::vector, what extra functionality can be gained in return?
I'm assuming there's some room for optimisation (most std::vector's
allocate head-room, for example, which may be bad if, say, you're
allocating a vector to hold every prime below 5,000,000, after you use
Erasmus' Sieve to find them). Probably not too much need, though.