From: Dave Gomboc (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-15 21:45:53
I missed Alberto's post, so I'll reply to this one.
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 22:46:27 -0300
From: "Fernando Cacciola" <fcacciola_at_[hidden]>
> "Alberto Barbati" <abarbati_at_[hidden]> escribió en el mensaje
[some examples snipped]
> > Those are interesting examples! Thanks.
> If I can say it, I don't think that they are really good examples.
Sorry, those were from my originally private email to Fernando, I forgot
to review that message more carefully for defects before posting it here.
> > The proposed signature of set::insert is a downgrade and not an
> > improvement. Even if the element is not inserted, I still may want to
> > have the iterator. In order to perform its operation, insert() will
> > have to compute such iterator, so what's the point in discarding it?
> You're right here.
> The iterator is always valid so it is useful on itself.
Hmm, so it is. For some reason I use find, then if the find fails, use
insert with the find as a hint, so I never noticed!
The examples were unrelated to my main point, which I've discussed at
length elsewhere already.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk