Hi, Matthieu Fertré a écrit : > Ok, no problem. I have initially replaced it thinking it was a vector. > On a vector, if I remember correctly, .at(i) is equivalent to [i] but > .at(i) checks that the vector is long enough and i is not out of range, > [i] don't do that.
Meaning that if the code was at fault, a clean exception/error message would be thrown instead of just a segfault? Anyway, you're right. The description of at() over cppreference.com for std::vector does say that. Thought, they don't mention the at() operator for std::map. The sgi doc doesn't mention any at() method for any of those objects, so I don't know what is supposed to be stl-standard. > But here, it's a map and not a vector, so I'm not sure what could be the > difference between .at() and []. I didn't see anything bad with it, as I thought it was just another way. Seems I was wrong. Well, you gotta learn something new each day. Regards, Kurosu _______________________________________________ Wormux-dev mailing list Wormux-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wormux-dev
