U++ forum: Welcome to the forum

Status & Roadmap

Authors & License

Funding Ultimate++

Search on this site

Search in forums

Home » U++ Library support » U++ Core » why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Return to the default flat view

Create a new topic

Submit Reply

Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers [message #28605 is a reply to message #28588]

Wed, 08 September 2010 10:24

rylek is currently offline

rylek
Messages: 79
Registered: November 2005

Member

Hi there!

It is a pleasure to play the third party, though the semantics of the term are highly disputable here. I think it's possible Mirek originally didn't include the return reference in Vector::Add to emphasize the fact that such references into Vectors are volatile in principle (specifically they are periodically invalidated by the Add function itself while reallocating the physical Vector data). But, of course, the same argument holds for Add() which does return the reference. Moreover, Array::Add(T *newobj) also returns the reference, albeit for different reasons.

U++ also decidedly avoids returning references in pick assignment operators, which is natural because a "chain" assignment (a = b = c) in such cases exhibits undesirable behaviour (by destroying b). But Vector::Add(const T&) doesn't have this problem; the only thing that has to be avoided is rather artificial constructs of the form

vector.Add(vector.Add(obj))

exactly because of the periodical Vector reference invalidation. But then again you can run into exactly the same problems by writing, e.g.

vector.Add(vector[5]);

so that this is no specific of Vector::Add(const T&) either. To sum it all up, I currently see no practical reasons against modifying Vector::Add to include the return reference. I would rather say that it's like updating old code to match interface standards adopted / developed later on, in fact I believe Vector is one of the very oldest things in U++ (although it's been rewritten quite a few times since its inception).

Regards

Tomas

Report message to a moderator

Send a private message to this user

[Message index]

		why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Thu, 29 July 2010 22:17
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Tue, 03 August 2010 11:15
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: andrei_natanael on Tue, 03 August 2010 12:53
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Tue, 03 August 2010 16:06
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: andrei_natanael on Tue, 03 August 2010 22:44
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Wed, 04 August 2010 09:57
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Thu, 05 August 2010 08:35
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: mrjt on Thu, 05 August 2010 09:55
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Thu, 05 August 2010 10:10
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: mirek on Fri, 06 August 2010 11:27
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Fri, 06 August 2010 11:48
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Mon, 09 August 2010 08:50
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: mirek on Fri, 13 August 2010 09:38
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Mon, 16 August 2010 09:06
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Mon, 30 August 2010 10:46
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: mirek on Mon, 06 September 2010 10:53
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Mon, 06 September 2010 11:52
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: mirek on Wed, 08 September 2010 09:00
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: rylek on Wed, 08 September 2010 10:24
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Wed, 08 September 2010 10:54
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: mirek on Wed, 08 September 2010 11:30
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: mirek on Fri, 17 September 2010 08:11
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Fri, 17 September 2010 09:15
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Thu, 21 October 2010 09:02
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: mirek on Thu, 21 October 2010 11:10
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Thu, 21 October 2010 11:54
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Wed, 30 March 2011 10:54
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: mirek on Sat, 16 April 2011 20:31
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Sun, 17 April 2011 14:46
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: mirek on Sun, 17 April 2011 21:43
		Re: why not "T & Add(const T & x)" in all containers By: kohait00 on Mon, 18 April 2011 09:00

Previous Topic:	InitCaps() proposal
Next Topic:	Incorrect implementation of INITBLOCK (and similar macros) in case when flagBLITZ is not defined.

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

PDF

]

Current Time: Mon Aug 25 11:00:31 CEST 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.04685 seconds