Re: "Must instantiate controlled types at library level." Why?

[Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>]

Ludovic Brenta wrote:
> Yes, that is what I meant.  Basically, std::vector<> does not
> eliminate the problems inherent to C++ arrays; it only provides a
> workaround.

OK, suppose I add these four lines to my code:

template <typename T, unsigned N> struct array {
     T a[N];
     T &operator[](unsigned i) { return i < N ? a[i] : throw i; }
};

Now I can declare my array, for example, as array<double, 100>,
and pass it around by value. I haven't used #include.

> Hyman also said that a programmer who would have a std::vector<T>*
> pointing to an array of vectors would be a stupid programmer.  I
> agree, but this is another form of the oft-heard argument that "any
> good programmer", etc. which it is not convincing to me.

No, that's not at all what I said. I said that no programmer would have
a native array of vectors, because it's a completely unnatural thing to
do. I also said that because of this, only a stupid programmer would
consider this to be a valid argument against C++.