------- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-08-03 19:28 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > Fair enough. My impression was that this was because std::vector<bool> is > "not a container" and that the specialization doesn't act like the parent > container. My (possibly flawed) understanding was that they were planning on > eliminating vector<bool> but were planning to introduce the same capability > under a new name, e.g. bit_vector or something like it.
Largely correct, AFAIK. > If that's the case, the effort isn't lost. Well, it depends on the actual design of the replacement. Obviusly it will not be identical to vector<bool>, likewise the implementation... -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28587
