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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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).