Are sequence containers not a subset of general containers?

[Sebastian Mach]

`stack` does not have an `iterator`-member-type, and therefore does not meet the general container requirements: `[container.requirements.general]`.


But in `[container.adaptors.general]`

The headers <queue> and <stack> define the container adaptors queue, priority_queue, and stack. These

container adaptors meet the requirements for sequence containers.


Are sequence containers not a subset of general containers?


(sidenote: I originally asked this on http://stackoverflow.com/questions/...containers-not-a-subset-of-general-containers)

 

[Victor Bazarov]

`stack` does not have an `iterator`-member-type, and therefore does

not meet the general container requirements:
`[container.requirements.general]`.
I can't find that wording anywhere. What document are you looking at?

But in `[container.adaptors.general]`

Is that from the final C++ 2011 Standard or one of the later drafts?

container adaptors meet the requirements for sequence containers.


Are sequence containers not a subset of general containers?

<shrug> Could it be you're looking at a defective draft that has been
superseded already?

V

 

[steve.jessop]

I can't find that wording anywhere. What document are you looking at?

The text is in N3290 (the FDIS) and also in N3337, which is the last draft I have. Was there much editorial change between N3337 and the ISO standard?

Steve.

 

[sftrabbit]

The text is in N3290 (the FDIS) and also in N3337, which is the last draft I have. Was there much editorial change between N3337 and the ISO standard?



Steve.

Looking at the draft on github, the defect still appears.

[container.adaptors.general] says: "The headers <queue> and <stack> define the container adaptors queue, priority_queue, and stack. These container adaptors meet the requirements for sequence containers." So stack should meetthe requirements for sequence containers.

Table 100, which gives those requirements, is captioned as: "Sequence container requirements (in addition to container)." So stack should meet container requirements too.

Container requirements (Table 96) require, for example, the expression X::iterator to be a valid type member of container X. However, the definition of stack in [stack.defn] does not provide stack::iterator. Therefore, the original statement (that stack is a sequence container) is false.

The same is true for both priority_queue and queue.

 

[mach.seb]

I can't find that wording anywhere. What document are you looking at?

This wording was my conclusion. I misformatted that one. Sorry.

 

[mach.seb]

Am Freitag, 5. Oktober 2012 12:42:28 UTC+2 schrieb Sebastian Mach:

`stack` does not have an `iterator`-member-type, and therefore does not meet the general container requirements: `[container.requirements.general]`.





But in `[container.adaptors.general]`

The headers <queue> and <stack> define the container adaptors queue, priority_queue, and stack. These

container adaptors meet the requirements for sequence containers.





Are sequence containers not a subset of general containers?





(sidenote: I originally asked this on http://stackoverflow.com/questions/...containers-not-a-subset-of-general-containers)

This is a defect that is now taken care of: http://cplusplus.github.com/LWG/lwg-active.html#2194