On Fri, 9 May 2014 15:37:15 +0200, Nicky D. wrote: > > > I notice "operator[](i)" is used in the interesting, > > > > With std::vector, you could also use array.at(i), which is equivalent. > > vector::at will do a runtime check if the index is out of bounds, in > that case it throws an exception. > > vector::operator[] will not do this check, causing undefined behavior > when accessing elements out of bounds.
True, but on the other hand, you'd never call array[i] with i out of array bound (it would be a bug, and throwing an exception via the use of at(i) is no better than "undefined behaviour" that will also lead to a crash in the end). The fact that array[i] doesn't check the upper bound also makes it faster than array.at(i): competent programmers who do check for bounds where actually needed will therefore prefer array[i] to array.at(i), esspecially when used in a loop ! Henri. _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
