Re: Support for Indexing and Iteration Safety

"David Abrahams" <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:u4r3dzibn.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Mike, please take this discussion to the C++-sig...
It is there. I did courtesy CC: when posted to -sig because original mail
felt into my e-mail inbox. ;)

> >   static void del(T& x, int n) {
> >     if( n<0 ) n+=x.size();
> >     if( n<x.size() && n>=0 ) x.erase(&x[n]);
> >     else IndexError(); }             ^^^^^
> > };                                   ^^^^^
>                                    Doesn't work (not an iterator).
Sorry. I'm spoiled by MSVC. Hope x.erase( Container<T>::iterator(&x[n]) )
will do?
(with proper Container type)

> I have something a little less simplistic in mind.  Why shouldn't
> everyone benefit? ;-)

It will be very nice thing to have.

> > My 0.02. Hope I made my point clear.
>
> Not really.  The clearest message I can discern is "there's really not
> much of a problem". Is that really what you're saying?

Not really. In my case I made it so with very simplistic approach AND
reducing my usage pattern.
I recall my surprise it isn't in place and sure agree with your answer "loud
NO" to any unpredictable behavior.
So I understand why it's better not to have then have unreliable.
I tried to argue in support of having something shall be reliable out of the
box.
For that goal it may be not the fastest and not the simplest.

Mike