From: Andrew Hain (andrew.hain_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-08-31 09:52:23
Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen <at> dezide.com> writes:
>
> Andrew Hain skrev:
> > Two quick queries.
> >
> > Would it make sense to have the iterator increment and decrement operators
and
> > begin() member function of ptr_vector< nullable<> > skip missing records so
> > that applications have no need to check?
>
> Well, it is always a design trade-off. If we did that, then people who
> need to know the index of the null value is in trouble.
>
> I do think it would make sense to add some utility iterator/range:
>
> boost::ptr_vector<T> vec;
> ...
> BOOST_FOREACH( T& e, boost::filter_nulls(vec) )
>
> or something. I'm open to naming ideas
Something like that could be useful.
>
> > What is stopping pointer container classes from being used with opaque
types
> > as a compilation firewall?
>
> Can you be more specific? I have some trouble knowing the precise problem.
>
I have been looking at replacing a homebrewed template class with ptr_vector.
The homebrewed template supports opaque classes with a nasty trick that only
allows the template to be used with types known to its definition; this is one
of the reasons I am trying to replace it. During my test I created a clone
template that calls a Clone() member function in each class and I got compiler
errors when the class arguments to ptr_vector are undefined. Would opaque
classes work with a separate out-of-line definition of each class?
> Thanks
>
> -Thorsten
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://listarchives.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
>