I missed Alberto's post, so I'll reply to this one. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2002 22:46:27 -0300 From: "Fernando Cacciola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [snip] > "Alberto Barbati" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió en el mensaje > atf8kh$gvr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:atf8kh$gvr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[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 _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
