Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010)
by kllrnohj on Thursday February 27, 2020 @04:22PM
(#22438059)
You made a broad, vague claim that iterator guarantees were broken. You misrepresented it as being a much larger issue that it actually is. Nearly all iterator guarantees are not broken. One very specific guarantee in one very specific case is, that's it. And it's a rare, not general, case at that, making the trade-off necessary to achieve it a bad default.
Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010)
by gpderetta on Friday February 28, 2020 @06:36AM
(#22442084)
returning, moving, swapping a small vector would break any pointer to an element. That's a big deal. Interior pointers are used all the time (that's, more than performance, the primary reason that reserve exist).
And they don't invalidate the iterators that point to actual elements, which was kind of the entire point I was making. Don't let that stop you from trying to make it look like I'm just blurting out nonsense, though.