Menu
Is the absence of
std::array<T,size>::array(const T& value); an oversight? It seems mighty useful to me, and dynamic containers (like std::vector) do have a similar constructor.
I am fully aware of
std::array<T,size>::fill(const T& value); but that is not a constructor, and the memory will be zeroed out first. What if I want all -1's like this guy?
417
std::array::arrayFor elements of a class type this means that their default constructor is called. For elements of fundamental types, they are left uninitialized (unless the array object has static storage, in which case they are zero-initialized).
std::array contains a built-in array, which can be initialized via an initializer list, which is what the inner set is. The outer set is for aggregate initialization.
std::array is merely a wrapper around the C-style fixed arrays. to provide type-safety with useful interfaces. Stack-allocation implies that the data for the array is stored in the object itself.
std::array does satisfy all the requirements of being a trivial, standard-layout class template. So the answer to your question is yes.
std::array is, by design, an aggregate, so has no user-declared constructors.
As you say, you could use fill after default constructing. Since it's an aggregate, default construction won't zero the memory, but will leave it uninitialised (if the contained type is trivially initialisable).
132
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
