From: Dave Gomboc (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-15 21:45:53
I missed Alberto's post, so I'll reply to this one.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 22:46:27 -0300
From: "Fernando Cacciola" <fcacciola_at_[hidden]>
[snip]
> "Alberto Barbati" <abarbati_at_[hidden]> escribió en el mensaje
> news:atf8kh$gvr$1_at_main.gmane.org...
[some examples snipped]
> > Those are interesting examples! Thanks.
[snip]
> If I can say it, I don't think that they are really good examples.
Sorry, those were from my originally private email to Fernando, I forgot
to review that message more carefully for defects before posting it here.
> > The proposed signature of set::insert is a downgrade and not an
> > improvement. Even if the element is not inserted, I still may want to
> > have the iterator. In order to perform its operation, insert() will
> > have to compute such iterator, so what's the point in discarding it?
> >
> You're right here.
> The iterator is always valid so it is useful on itself.
Hmm, so it is. For some reason I use find, then if the find fails, use
insert with the find as a hint, so I never noticed!
The examples were unrelated to my main point, which I've discussed at
length elsewhere already.
Dave