On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote: > So.... ok to default to a lazy one, or are suggesting we leave things > as they are?
Either leave as-is or default to the lazy one. Richard. > 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
