On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 15:46:19 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 9/29/10 10:43 PDT, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
What I mean is, why is it automatically assumed that if front does not
return a ref, the only way to swap is via moveX? If T == int, why must
we have a moveFront to deal with it? IMO, all algorithms should default
to copying unless alternatives exist.
Good point. We should arrange things such that all types without
elaborate copy constructors allow swapping by copying.
Well, this isn't exactly what I said, but it makes sense. If there is an
elaborate copy constructor, then you shouldn't be calling it frequently.
But then at the same time, isn't front() expected to be a fast operation?
It's kind of the basis of most algorithms anyways, no?
So if you build a range that returns T by value in front(), are you to not
expect that people will call front() frequently? How does foreach perform
on such an "elaborate copy constructor" range?
I think there's a broken concept here somewhere...
Could you please bugzillize this so it's not forgotten?
I will, I'll just wait a bit in case there are more responses.
-Steve
