On Friday 26. June 2015 15:42:31 Daniel Teske wrote: > > > For standard containers, this is specified in *container.requirements* > > > To quote, with: a being a container and rv a non-const rvalue of the > > > same > > > type: > > > > > > a = rv > > > > > > "All existing elements of a are either move assigned to or destroyed," > > > > > > I do not see any reason why our containers should not give the same > > > guarantee for move assignment and consider this a bug. > > > > Is this really that much different? > > There's a huge difference between "either move assigned to or destroyed" and > not doing that. > > I'm not sure where you are disagreeing, so can you point out to which of > those 4 statements you don't agree? > > - Standard containers guarantee that the old elements get either move > assigned or destroyed.
I partially disagree. The wording seems to indeed implies that the move assignement operator of std::vector should do iterate over all elements to destroy or move them. But in practice, GCC implementation does not do that: http://cpp.sh/2s4w Is it a bug in the GCC's stdlib implemenation? Or is it a misunderstanding of the wording of the standard? > - QVector does not give the same guarantee, because it uses swap. Irrelevant. > - QVector should give the same guarantee as the standard containers. I disagree with that. QVector is not std::vector. At first, it is implicitly shared, so that's already a big difference. And therefore we can allow ourselfs many more differences. -- Olivier Woboq - Qt services and support - http://woboq.com - http://code.woboq.org _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
