On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Lubos Lunak <l.lu...@suse.cz> wrote: > You didn't read further than that part above, did you? > > What you want is broken. It is definitely broken from the theoretical point > of view, since modifying the items may change the sort order. >
Aaaaaargh. Instead of casting aspersions on my replies, how about you actually read the o3tl::sorted_vector.hxx code and look at some of the use-cases in the LO codebase. What is broken is attempting to provide a level of protection that is not useful in practice, mostly get bypassed, and does not play nice with the C++ type-system. Now, however, if you look at my original email, I make some suggestions that will actually improve things. For example, we can split the problem into 2 sub-use-cases (a) sorted_vector_of_ptr_to_val (b) sorted_vector_of_val Then for each of these cases, we can apply some degree (but not a lot) of const-protection _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
