From: igodard@pacbell.net   
      
   On 7/24/2012 12:28 PM, Kaba wrote:   
   > 24.7.2012 21:53, Bo Persson kirjoitti:   
   >> Because it isn't very useful, and you already know exactly where the   
   >> new element will end up: list.back()   
   >   
   > On the usefulness I disagree (see my other posts); on my viewpoint an   
   > element is very often created to be referred to directly, not just as   
   > a member of sequence.   
   >   
   > It is true that we know were the element is, but I don't accept this   
   > as a convincing argument why things should be this way:)   
   >   
   >> If you want an iterator anyway, you can easily get one with   
   >>   
   >> list.insert(list.cend(), Value);   
   >   
   > This is a practical option.   
   >   
   Only if the list is not shared among threads. The STL will make each   
   operation atomic, but not two together. Consequently the insert may not   
   be at the end. Worse, list.cend may be invalidated by the time   
   list.insert happens. The proposal avoids that problem.   
      
   Ivan   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)