Difference between revisions of "Talk:cpp/container/vector"
(→Wrong description of operator[]: new section) |
D41D8CD98F (Talk | contribs) (→Wrong description of operator[]) |
||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
It currently describe operator[] as "access or insert specified element", which is incorrect, since std::vector::operator[] never inserts an element, unlike std::map::operator[]. This is because the description uses the standard operator_at template. I'd argue it's better to give a correct description. [[Special:Contributions/2620:0:105F:2:6169:A7F:B58D:284B|2620:0:105F:2:6169:A7F:B58D:284B]] 01:23, 29 January 2018 (PST) | It currently describe operator[] as "access or insert specified element", which is incorrect, since std::vector::operator[] never inserts an element, unlike std::map::operator[]. This is because the description uses the standard operator_at template. I'd argue it's better to give a correct description. [[Special:Contributions/2620:0:105F:2:6169:A7F:B58D:284B|2620:0:105F:2:6169:A7F:B58D:284B]] 01:23, 29 January 2018 (PST) | ||
+ | : fixed --[[User:D41D8CD98F|D41D8CD98F]] ([[User talk:D41D8CD98F|talk]]) 01:29, 29 January 2018 (PST) |
Revision as of 01:29, 29 January 2018
--BohdanKornienko (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2013 (PDT)
Small example to use vector header:
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
std::vector<int> vec;
vec.insert(vec.begin(), 1);
vec.insert(vec.end(), 2);
vec.insert(vec.end(), 3);
vec.erase(vec.begin() + 1);
std::cout << "count: " << vec.size()
<< "\ncapacity: " << vec.capacity() << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Pointer/iterator invalidation and vector::assign.
Does vector::assign invalidate iterators? It's not on the list, but I have to assume that if the new size blows the capacity, they have to be invalidated, right? What does the standard say about this?
- Neither the simplified summary here nor the actual page (std::vector::assign) say anything about invalidation because the standard (Table 107 — Sequence container requirements) does not say anything about invalidation; it just says "Replaces elements ... with copies of". For input iterators, LLVM libc++ just calls clear and then a series of push_backs, obviously invalidating everything. GNU libstdc++ is a little more careful --Cubbi (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2016 (PDT)
- If there's no wording anywhere, I think we'll need an LWG issue, because otherwise the blanket wording in [container.requirements.general]/12 kicks in, which would be obviously wrong. T. Canens (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2016 (PDT)
Wrong description of operator[]
It currently describe operator[] as "access or insert specified element", which is incorrect, since std::vector::operator[] never inserts an element, unlike std::map::operator[]. This is because the description uses the standard operator_at template. I'd argue it's better to give a correct description. 2620:0:105F:2:6169:A7F:B58D:284B 01:23, 29 January 2018 (PST)
- fixed --D41D8CD98F (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2018 (PST)