220 15443 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Olaf van der Spek Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Isn't it time we had the bool std::[container]::contains() family of methods? Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2015 16:03:48 +0100 Lines: 44 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <0959f2f8-acdd-4786-b6f3-0f05c62dcee6@isocpp.org> <3516872.4RhFvKrMWZ@tjmaciei-mobl4> <1457087.mBB46HcHFC@tjmaciei-mobl4> <085f07b9-6679-40ae-a737-69c70aab4e21@isocpp.org> <30754b0a-21b7-438d-90e6-50bd3920dc2f@isocpp.org> <5f44a82a-94ce-4b1e-91a1-3f7e01bd2d88@isocpp.org> <60f5e629-950c-4d60-ae4b-12f74ea762b7@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1420297439 8674 80.91.229.3 (3 Jan 2015 15:03:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2015 15:03:59 +0000 (UTC) Cc: mw_triad@users.sourceforge.net To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBC5NB45SSABBBVMJUCSQKGQEB2OGEAI@isocpp.org Sat Jan 03 16:03:52 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ie0-f197.google.com ([209.85.223.197]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Y7QF4-00019I-Qh for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Jan 2015 16:03:50 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-ie0-f197.google.com with SMTP id x19sf119332931ier.8 for ; Sat, 03 Jan 2015 07:03:50 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=rrFaM8rHEtFe1sH0KUZJy6aJQdP8zHhBoSIx1v43wp4=; b=CfCFcssMb2TXQB/tbqwgu+gW1hqjJ3N/YbD0rkVpeKysOwrIpOJ03sQ49A+pyRACOg tTDx4D050YSeQ+C469gE4MSZb9aKVpMcAC3ivDEqIB57N+s7g2GJzDLlBVt+GKQh8Eyr 4XAtzR4OjM605DMvBS596fDuw1x/Hit/kxt1rlcd+Kxrt0qUTZxPmrrAufPUOUib7PCm nlkjIYLtb2+6OONXtpUmsufnyV+GDbHLpINyqUB1aXMPMTGZaID2V8XwFCHSENUzXOZ2 r0FGpFZurnssbhM5p6ZE+V2JJLOcFW7GwU6JiziS6nNSe365B2T/jXpPmk5c+fSduO3Z yFaQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQniJI17L3mVx5BujN1i5MDuENWeD9huL1VGmu9XjxsdI0VICJ8U4sbFwyMTZ6diKY7tWnkh X-Received: by 10.182.55.99 with SMTP id r3mr48357568obp.8.1420297430040; Sat, 03 Jan 2015 07:03:50 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.49.3 with SMTP id p3ls5080150qga.46.gmail; Sat, 03 Jan 2015 07:03:49 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.224.67.132 with SMTP id r4mr68657100qai.1.1420297429216; Sat, 03 Jan 2015 07:03:49 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from mail-qa0-x22d.google.com (mail-qa0-x22d.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22d]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t64si55150546qgt.111.2015.01.03.07.03.49 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 03 Jan 2015 07:03:49 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of olafvdspek@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22d; Original-Received: by mail-qa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id f12so12143751qad.18 for ; Sat, 03 Jan 2015 07:03:49 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.224.54.2 with SMTP id o2mr131546136qag.63.1420297429111; Sat, 03 Jan 2015 07:03:49 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.229.151.70 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Jan 2015 07:03:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: olafvdspek@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of olafvdspek@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c00::22d as permitted sender) smtp.mail=olafvdspek@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:15443 Archived-At: On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Andy Prowl wrote: > Single Responsibility Principle. As I mentioned, I'm aware this is a > subjective argument :) It has a lot of objective aspects though. >> Pointers can be used instead of 'checked' iterators. Pointers surely have >> no performance or memory overhead. ;) >> Obviously you lose the iterator but that's the same for contains(). > > > Yes, but contains() is explicitly mean for those cases where the iterator > doesn't matter. I don't think the same can be said of find(). I think it can, especially with maps. See my find_ptr wrapper. >> AFAIK the return type of binary_search was a mistake. > > > OK, didn't know that. Can you provide some more background on this? No, sorry, but a quick search turns up lots of questions why it doesn't return an iterator. >> IMO a variant taking a range makes sense with or without range proposal. > > > Probably yes, although I'm afraid it would still be inconvenient enough (due > to the begin()/end() noise) for users to opt for a custom wrapper, which > would defeat the purpose. I don't understand, a variant taking a range/container would NOT require you to write begin() and end(). Olaf -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. .