On Aug 11, 2011, at 12:22 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote: > On Wednesday 10 of August 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote: >> On Aug 10, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote: >>> On Tuesday 09 of August 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote: >>>> Technically, lostd::list is no longer a container, as it violates the >>>> requirement that the return type of size() is size_type. (And if you >>>> redefine size_type as int, as you should do anyway in the above sketch, >>>> it violates the requirement that size_type is an unsigned integral >>>> type.) >>> >>> Do you realize that as long as the list does not contain 2E9 items, which >>> it does not, this does not matter at all? >> >> That's not my point. My point is that such an IMO hacky solution that >> tries to outsmart the language is probably not worth it. (Imagine a >> compiler that emits a warning if a class that does not meet the container >> requirements is used with one of the standard algorithms…) > > This scores really very very low on my scale of hackiness. Can you come up > with an example that would be broken by this that would not be more hacky on > its own? > > And actually, there is even nothing wrong with it technically. If you use the > class with anything that requires size_t to be unsigned, you use the class as > std::vector, and there size_t is unsigned. It's only the wrapper that is > signed. > > BTW, Qt has been doing this since at least Qt4.0 (see > http://doc.qt.nokia.com/4.7/qvector.html#size_type-typedef) and apparently > has been getting away with it nicely. There used to be exactly the same > annoyances with older Qt and probably most people by now even don't even know > there could be a problem with anything.
I see. I'm still not convinced, though. For one, there are more uses of unsigned in the C/C++ ecosystem than std::vector::size_type, so there are potentially many more places in the code where you have to be aware of and be prepared to properly handle issues of signed/unsigned mismatch. For another, replacing standard functionality with its own invention (even if its only a wrapper) is something the OOo code base has often been criticized for (and often rightly so, IMO). But, sure, YMMV. -Stephan _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
