On 05/12/2023 22.36, Arthur O'Dwyer via Std-Proposals wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2023 at 4:03 PM Ryan Nicholl via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden] <mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
>
> I want to raise my personal concern around the proposed solution to Issue2157.
>
> I do not believe that std::array<T, 0> {{}}; should be required to be valid syntax. This prevents std::array<T, 0> from being implemented as an empty struct. It is also just logically inconsistent with an array that contains no elements. I believe this eliminates empty base class optimization and presents several other issues that I believe diverge from the 0 overhead principle. For this reason I think the solution ought to be reconsidered.
>
>
> (You're talking about LWG 2157 <https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue2157>, "How does std::array<T,0> initialization work when T is not default-constructible?".)
>
> There are two caveats you don't seem to be taking into account:
> (1) No user-programmer ever should write `array<T,0> t = {{}};` — `array`, like every other STL container and algebraic type, is intended to be used with a single pair of braces `array<T,0> t = {};`. Yes, in all present-day library implementations this relies on brace elision <https://eel.is/c++draft/dcl.init.aggr#16.sentence-1>; that's okay.
> (2) No library vendor implements `array<T,0>` as an empty type.
>
> Asking for `array<T,0>` to be "maybe empty, maybe not" would cause (minor) pain for user-programmers. Asking for it to be "always empty" would cause (major ABI-breaking) pain for vendors. The proposed resolution of LWG 2157 seems to fix some infelicities in the current wording, without causing pain for (1) any user-programmer or (2) any existing vendor. So it seems like an improvement to me.

A consistency point of view:

T * p = new T[n];

(where n might be a constant or not)

is now required to have T default constructible even if n = 0.

CWG2102

Jens