hanw...@gmail.com writes: > Here is how I have experienced this discussion: > > DAK: this is micro-optimization that causes memory fragmentation. > > HW: No, it's not; here is a benchmark that shows decreased memory use as > well. > > DAK: We could use even different data structures in the future. > > HW: This seems very philosophical to me.
It is interesting that you call it "philosophical" to want to change data structures while getting a patch of yours reviewed that wants to change data structures. In particular after I indicated that I even have code. Why is it "philosophical" when someone other than you does it? > Maybe I misunderstood, because the hardcoding of a specific STL > container type predates this patch. Changing the used container type would be a reasonable point of time for changing the hardcoding, particularly since it facilitates comparisons. Also C++11 makes this considerably less awkward than previously, and code written with lists in mind tends to require less adaptation to use via vectors than the other way round, anyway. It's not just the time that a computer may save when going through the code that is important. Humans are worth consideration as well. > If you want me to use "auto" instead of > "vector<Building>::const_iterator", can you just point to the line in > the code and say "could you use auto instead of an iterator here"? Wouldn't "everywhere" be sort of obvious? > https://codereview.appspot.com/583750043/ -- David Kastrup
