home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   comp.lang.c++.moderated      Moderated discussion of C++ superhackery      33,346 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 33,147 of 33,346   
   =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Daniel_Kr=FCgler?= to All   
   Re: input iterators and post increment   
   25 Jul 13 02:57:43   
   
   From: daniel.kruegler@googlemail.com   
      
   On 2013-07-25 08:50, fmatthew5876 wrote:   
   > In that case I think my original idea of returning a default   
   > constructed iterator which will assert when dereferenced is the best   
   > solution. Crash immediately is the better than random crashes/bugs   
   > showing up later.   
      
   I don't understand what you mean. If your input iterator returns a   
   proxy result, there is no reason why this could cause the code to be   
   dangerous that could lead to random crashes. Would you please   
   elaborate?   
      
   > This is a hole in the standard and should be fixed.   
      
   I don't understand for the hole here that needs to be fixed.   
      
   > Post-increment is a rather silly operation. Its nothing more than   
   > syntactic sugar and for complicated iterators that do all sorts of   
   > magic behind the the scenes it has very little value. It seems like   
   > another classic example of operator overloading abuse.   
      
   Maybe, but so is operator-> and the requirements have existed for   
   decades. Personally I would instead suggest to introduce a new   
   iterator category set that does better discriminate traversal and   
   access. When doing so, the requirement for post-fix increment could be   
   reconsidered or moved to higher-level iterator traversal categories.   
      
   > I would propose the following changes:   
   > Not only is post-increment completely useless and dangerous for   
   > input/output iterators, its also inefficient for all iterators.   
      
   It's inefficient for many non-pointer iterators, but it is not   
   dangerous. I don't think that an efficiency argument alone could   
   convince the committee to break code that exists since decades.   
      
   HTH & Greetings from Bremen,   
      
   - Daniel Krügler   
      
      
      
   --   
         [ 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)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca