Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-02 09:23:36

Tom Widmer <tom_usenet_at_[hidden]> writes:

>>If I'm misusing the code, is there some reason for this? It's
>>inconvenient that the default constructor doesn't initialize pointers
>>to some consistent value; the problem goes away when I change the
>>indirect_iterator default constructor:
>> 94c94,96
>> < indirect_iterator() {}
>> ---
>> > indirect_iterator()
>> > : super_t( Iterator() )
>> > {}
> That gives you a false sense of safety. Default initializing many
> iterator types is a no-op - they are still unusable (e.g.
> std::list::iterator).

or, in the same way, int*.

Tom's right. You don't have a right to expect very much from a
default-constructed iterator. You can't even copy it without inducing
undefined behavior.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at