So.... ok to default to a lazy one, or are suggesting we leave things as they are?
Aldy On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: >> I understand the need for .quick_push(), when we know the size of the >> allocated elements before hand, but do we really need to call the >> common variant safe_push? Can't we just call it push()? >> >> Or is there some magic C++ rule/idiom that prohibits us from doing this? >> >> I volunteer to provide a patch if y'all agree. > > I think having quick_push and safe_push makes you think which one to use > while push would be the obvious lazy one. Aka nobody thinks of pre-allocating > stuff and using quick_push anymore. > > Just my 2 cents... > > Richard. > >> Aldy
