Using std::equal with an empty set.
in [Visual C]
|
Prev: Bounded Buffers
Next: Operator new
From: Ulrich Eckhardt on 26 Jan 2010 09:39 Vladimir Grigoriev wrote: > Ulrich, It is not so obvious thing as you think. It is obvious for you > because your have much expirience with algorithms. However if to approch > literally to the Standard description questions arise. So you don't have a good foundation of experience but already are wise enough to detect yet another "foolishness of the C++ Standard"? Sorry, but that attitude sucks. Suggestion: Take a look at "Design and Evolution of C++" by Stroustrup (IIRC), which not only documents how things are (as the standard does) but also why and how they developed. Then, get familiar with the STL-derived part of C++, I would even suggest reading the STL documentation instead, which is a bit more verbose than the standard. Then, when you have an overview, we can start arguing about whether a definition is good or bad. Anyway, I'm out of here. Uli -- C++ FAQ: http://parashift.com/c++-faq-lite Sator Laser GmbH Geschäftsführer: Thorsten Föcking, Amtsgericht Hamburg HR B62 932
From: Vladimir Grigoriev on 26 Jan 2010 10:20
"Ulrich Eckhardt" <eckhardt(a)satorlaser.com> wrote in message news:2eb337-j6q.ln1(a)satorlaser.homedns.org... > Vladimir Grigoriev wrote: >> Ulrich, It is not so obvious thing as you think. It is obvious for you >> because your have much expirience with algorithms. However if to approch >> literally to the Standard description questions arise. > > So you don't have a good foundation of experience but already are wise > enough to detect yet another "foolishness of the C++ Standard"? Sorry, but > that attitude sucks. > Yes, I am wise enough to detect yet another foolishness because this demonstrates that for newcomers the description of the Standard is not clear enough! For example till now I have not the answer on the question why may not std::greater_equal be used with the std::min or std::min_element. > Suggestion: Take a look at "Design and Evolution of C++" by Stroustrup > (IIRC), which not only documents how things are (as the standard does) but > also why and how they developed. Then, get familiar with the STL-derived > part of C++, I would even suggest reading the STL documentation instead, > which is a bit more verbose than the standard. Then, when you have an > overview, we can start arguing about whether a definition is good or bad. Thanks, I am reading. For example I have read in the "C++ in a nutshell" of Ray Lischner that I may use operator -( 42, 10 ) while here others say that I may not. This demonstrates one more that the Standard description is not clear enough even for experienced C++ programmers. Vladimir Grigoriev |