diff --git a/doc/array.xml b/doc/array.xml
index 73e185c..414dd79 100644
--- a/doc/array.xml
+++ b/doc/array.xml
@@ -66,9 +66,13 @@
After considering different names, we decided to name this
class simply array.
- Class array fulfills
- most but not all of the requirements of "reversible containers"
- (see Section 23.1, [lib.container.requirements] of the C++
+ Note that this class is suggested to be part of the next
+ Technical Report, which will extend the C++ Standard (see
+ http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2003/n1548.htm).
+
+ Class array fulfills most
+ but not all of the requirements of "reversible containers" (see
+ Section 23.1, [lib.container.requirements] of the C++
Standard). The reasons array is not an reversible STL container is
because:
@@ -478,51 +482,39 @@
Note that if there are fewer elements in the
initializer list, then each remaining element gets
- default-initialized (thus, it has a defined value). However,
- passing no initializer list means that the elements have an
- indetermined initial value.
+ default-initialized (thus, it has a defined value).
+
- It has no user-declared constructors.
- It has no private or protected non-static data members.
- It has no base classes.
- It has no virtual functions.
+ However, this approach has its drawbacks: passing no initializer list means that the elements
+ have an indetermined initial value, because the rule says
+ that aggregates may have:
+
+ No user-declared constructors.
+ No private or protected non-static data members.
+ No base classes.
+ No virtual functions.
-
- The current implementation uses this approach. However, being
- able to have indeterminate initial values is a big drawback. So,
- please give me some feedback, how useful you consider this feature
- to be.
-
-
- Open Issues
+ Nevertheless, The current implementation uses this approach.
-
+ Note that for standard conforming compilers it is possible to
+ use fewer braces (according to 8.5.1 (11) of the Standard). That is,
+ you can initialize an array as follows:
-
- Do we want initializer list support or would the
- following be OK?:
+
+boost::array<int,4> a = { 1, 2, 3 };
+
- int data[] = { 1, 2, 3, 4 }
-boost::array<int,5> x(data); // or boost::array<int,data> x;
-
+ I'd appreciate any constructive feedback. Please note: I don't have time to read all boost
+ mails. Thus, to make sure that feedback arrives to me, please send
+ me a copy of each mail regarding this class.
- Could "{ ... }" be used portably instead of "{
- { ... } }" to initialize values? 8.5.1 (11) of the Standard seems
- to allow it; however, gcc 2.95.2 prints a warning
- message.
+ The code is provided "as is" without expressed or implied
+ warranty.
- Any way to have determinate initial values and
- initializer list support?
-
- Static_casts for reverse iterator stuff?
-
-
- I'd appreciate any constructive feedback. Please note: I don't
- have time to read all boost mails. Thus, to make sure that feedback arrives me,
- please send me a copy of each mail regarding this class.