On Fri, 2011-02-18 at 09:11 +0100, David Tardon wrote: > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:36:27PM +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote: > > The main thing that I changed was that in some cases you used > > vector<...>::iterator it = another_iterator + 1; This is not correct, > > operator+() is not defined on std::vector, so the result might be not > > what you'd expect; similarly with -1. I have changed those to ++it, or > > --it (on a temporary copy, or so). > > Hi, Kendy, > > sure it is defined, see ISO C++, 24.1.5, table 76: Random access > iterator requirements. ISO C++, 23.1.1, table 68 even describes > operational semantics of operator[] for vector and deque by > *(a.begin() + n) :)
It works as long as the iterator is random access iterator. As soon as you change the container to, say, list, whose iterator is bi-directional but not random access that above statement is not guaranteed to work. (It may work, but not guaranteed.) It's better (and safer) to use std::advance to advance the iterator position, or ++ or -- if it's only a change of one position. Kohei -- Kohei Yoshida, LibreOffice hacker, Calc <kyosh...@novell.com> _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
