This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [libstdc++] Doxygen markup for algorithms
- From: Kenny Simpson <theonetruekenny at yahoo dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <cow at compsoc dot man dot ac dot uk>
- Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 12:31:07 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: [libstdc++] Doxygen markup for algorithms
--- Jonathan Wakely <cow@compsoc.man.ac.uk> wrote:
> I was
> working mainly from
> the SGI docs when I started, and should have gone
> back to review it with
> the other sources I was using (Josutis isn't one of
> them unfortunately)
FWIW I find Austern's book the best reference for this
stuff, it even documents the sgi extensions.
> Reading the text of the proposal am I right in
> thinking it can modify the
> argument so long as it doesn't change anything that
> would affect the
> ordering of the sequence?
That's basicly what I get out of it. So something
like:
struct Bad_Func
{
Bad_Func( std::set<int>& whole_set_ ) : whole_set(
while_set_ ){}
void operator()( int element ) const
{
whole_set.erase( element );
}
std::set<int>& while_set;
};
{
std::set<int> local_set( .... );
std::for_each(
local_set.begin(),
local_set.end(),
Bad_Func( local_set ));
}
Would have undefined results.
> To be honest, I'm glad the function object can
> modify its arg, as I've
> got code that uses a functor to delete each pointer
> in a sequence, so now
> I know it's standard conforming :)
Item 7 in Meyers' Effective STL does exactly this.
> Thanks for spotting it!
Thanks for writing doc!
-Kenny
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com