On 09/08/2009 23:00, rgheck wrote:
On 08/09/2009 03:11 PM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
On 09/08/2009 21:09, rgheck wrote:
On 08/09/2009 03:08 PM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
On 09/08/2009 21:00, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote:
Basically we think it's a bit lazy to start moving around
paragraphs without ensuring that a decent buffer is set. Moreover,
I think that we should do it only at one place. That place would
be somewhere in CutAndPaste. There is no other reason than pasting
that the buffer should get invalidated.
I see. Then someone needs the fix all cases where something is copied.
That was the intention. I guess we missed a few....
I'm still puzzled about swap().
void swap(_Ty& _Left, _Ty& _Right)
{ // exchange values stored at _Left and _Right
if (&_Left != &_Right)
{ // different, worth swapping
_Ty _Tmp = _Left;
_Left = _Right;
_Right = _Tmp;
}
}
See?
You are maybe confusing with container swapping, which is something
else that we should probably use in this case.
Yes, I was, specifically with RandomAccessList::swap(), which
shouldn't make a copy, right?
You mean the swap method that I just created for that purpose? Yes,
indeed ;-)
In any event, avoiding a copy here is worth doing, I'd assume. Indeed,
part of what moving that routine out of setBuffer does is reveal
places where we're making unnecessary copies.
Right.
Abdel.
