Re: STL list code fires assertion in VC++ 2005, but not in VC++ 2003.
On Jun 28, 11:53 pm, Jason Doucette <jdouce...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Does the caller have access to the list? If he does, returning the
'end()' is much better than relying on the iterator's comparability
with NULL. It he does not, why does it have to be an iterator? Make
your function return a pointer, to the contained element if success
and NULL if not.
Yes, the caller does have access to the list, so returning end() is an
option, and sounds like something much better to use. I didn't know
it was standard practice to use this for something "out of range". (I
guess pointers / NULL just seemed intuitive.)
It's the usual solution when the user is aware of the list.
Another, more general solution is to use Barton and Nackman's
Fallible as a return value.
The caller makes use of the information within the element it gets (if
not NULL), and then deletes it from the list. So, having the iterator
to this element is ideal, since deleting it via erase() is very easy,
as it takes in an iterator to the element you want erased.
This sounds like something Fallible was designed for. The
client has no need to "know" anything about the list.
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34