C++ Logo

STD-DISCUSSION

Advanced search

Subject: Re: Making the new expression smart
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-09-18 12:30:24


On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 6:25 AM Richard Hodges via Std-Discussion <
std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:

>
>
> Again, std::tuple may or may not rely on intrinsics today, that is not
> the point. We know that a growing number of library constructs do.
>

What are they? Concrete examples of these intrinsics, please.

> A few years ago, I remember that there were laments about it being
> "impossible to implement std::vector with compliant code". One answer to
> that (the approach taken) is to supply library tools (backed by compiler
> intrinsics in the case of clang I believe). Another is to simply accept
> that vector is so useful and necessary a noun that it ought to be part of
> the language.
>

What about third-party vector-like types, such as boost::small_vector or
boost::static_vector? Are they just out of luck when vector is built into
the language and we don't solve how to implement it as a library? And good
luck getting those containers into standard C++, because gathering field
experience for things that have to be built into compilers is tough.

-- 
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden] <nevin_at_[hidden]>>
+1-847-691-1404


STD-DISCUSSION list run by std-discussion-owner@lists.isocpp.org

Older Archives on Google Groups