From: Bruno Martínez (br1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-19 14:23:39
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 15:39:10 -0200, Joaquín Mª López Muñoz
<joaquin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Bruno Martínez ha escrito:
>
>> I frequently do something like this:
>>
>> #include <list>
>>
>> struct part;
>>
>> struct whole {
>> std::list<part*> parts;
>> };
>>
>> struct part {
>> part(whole& w) : my_whole(&w) {
>> me =
>> my_whole->parts.insert(my_whole->parts.end(), this);
>> }
>> ~part() {
>> my_whole->parts.erase(me);
>> }
>> whole* my_whole;
>> std::list<part*>::iterator me;
>> };
>>
>
> OK, but seems to me the kind of idioms you propose are best served
> by an intrusive version of multi_index_container. The "pointer to
> iterator"
> feature does not help in isolation, if I'm understanding you right.
If I can get an iterator from a pointer, I don't have to store the
iterator. I just get an iterator from this. Of course, it's more clear
using intrusive containers.
Multi_index allows to work with std::set-like containers more easily. For
example, you can search for the key, not the whole element. This is sort
of intrusive already, and I don't see anything bad in it. Whenever the
element knows it's contained, intrusive is clearer.
Bruno