Fortunately, we aren't bound by a standards body, so if there turn out to be problems we could just rip it out.
Sent from my iPhone On Jul 9, 2010, at 12:02 AM, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday 08 July 2010 23:17:22 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> On 07/09/2010 12:25 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: >>>> Also added specialization of Array for bool that stores one bit per >>>> element. >>> >>> _Please_ tell me that's optional in some manner. I don't know >>> _anyone_ who uses vector<bool> in C++ _precisely_ because of this >>> optimization. I don't think that I've ever talked to anyone who >>> thought that vector<bool> being special in that manner was a good >>> thing. >> >> I am well aware of vector<bool>'s problems and designed Array!bool very >> carefully to avoid each and all of them. >> >> Andrei >> _______________________________________________ >> phobos mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos > > Well, I would have thought that you'd have been aware of the issue, but since > I've never heard of anyone thinking that doing anything other than just > making > vector<bool> function like it would with vector<int> or vector<string> or > whatever, I was very surprised to see that you would consider doing something > similar with Array!bool. Now, if you're sure that you've managed to avoid the > issues that exist with vector<bool>, then that's fine, but I'd hate for D to > have > the same problems with Array!bool that C++ has with vector<bool>. > > - Jonathan M Davis > _______________________________________________ > phobos mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
