Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Rips out dead code from the container.hpp and creates for_each_pair.hpp #1882

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 11, 2016

Conversation

daniel-j-h
Copy link
Member

Note: after merging #1660 is resolved; close the issue.

I manually checked all the occurrences in the code base (phew..); where it is placed but an exception might get thrown, we might as well take the std::terminate that comes with it (e.g. in not being able to log). I also added two TODOs that I would like to address in the future.

I added two TODOs that I would like to address in the future.
@TheMarex TheMarex force-pushed the refactor_container_code branch from b8e586b to c93ca02 Compare January 11, 2016 19:14
@TheMarex TheMarex merged commit c93ca02 into develop Jan 11, 2016
{
function(*begin, *next);
begin = std::next(begin);
next = std::next(next);
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

just nit-pitting, but I've read somewhere that it would be best to bring these kind of functions into the namespace (using std::next) so that the compiler can decide which next to use, if there should be some better fitting one.
Just as you've done below for begin and end.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm for begin / end I can understand the need for Koenig lookup (so that it e.g. works on raw arrays); next should eventually dispatch to operator++ (for forward iterators), and that the iterator concept guarantees for and lets the user implement it in any way she wishes.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Dec 6, 2017

Coverage Status

Changes Unknown when pulling c93ca02 on refactor_container_code into ** on develop**.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants