🚀 go-pugleaf

Andrew Koenig (ark@research.att.com) wrote:
: In article <44kgjg$cuv@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> ukci@rzstud1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Alexander Ehrler) writes:

: It is possible to implement safe containers on top of unsafe ones.
: I don't know how to implement fast containers on top of slow ones.
: There is also nothing stopping implementations from providing
: bounds-checked versions of STL if they so desire.


Correct, but I think wether a container handles bound violations or not
is not only a question of implementation. It's important to know if
one can rely on exception handling by the utility classes. Therefore a list
of potentially thrown exceptions is part of a class member's interface.

The second problem is that every software company that provides an ISO C++
compiler has to write their own 'user-friendly' version of the standard
STL containers. This will probably lead to a bunch of different higher-level
classes, a situation we face today. AFAIK is the reason of including  
classlibs in the ISO standard to avoid such a mess.

Is there any problem with supporting fast low-level containers as well as
save containers (probably built on top of the fast ones) in the standard ?


Regards,

Alex


--

       ,,,,,        Alex Ehrler * University of Karlsruhe * Computer Science
      ( 0 @ )       Loetzenerstr. 18   *   D - 76139 Karlsruhe   *   Germany
 --oOO--(_)--OOo--  email: ukci@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de   *  phone: (0721)681609