Re: Storing a tree in a std::list<>
From: Alan Johnson (alanwj_at_mailandnews.com)
Date: 06/06/04
- Next message: Petec: "Re: Why code completion and early error checking are needed"
- Previous message: Steven T. Hatton: "Re: Why code completion and early error checking are needed"
- In reply to: Dave: "Storing a tree in a std::list<>"
- Next in thread: Dave: "Re: Storing a tree in a std::list<>"
- Reply: Dave: "Re: Storing a tree in a std::list<>"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:45:58 -0500
Dave wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> After perusing the Standard, I believe it is true to say that once you
> insert an element into a std::list<>, its location in memory never changes.
> This makes a std::list<> ideal for storing vertices of an arbitrary n-ary
> tree where a vertex contain pointers to its parent / children. These parent
> / child vertices need to stay put if we've got pointers to them somewhere!
>
> Am I correct in my assertion?
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
>
While that probably is true for almost any implementation, I don't think
that the standard actually requires it. What it does require is that
adding/removing elements (as well as most other operations) do not
invalidate any iterators to elements of the list.
Alan
- Next message: Petec: "Re: Why code completion and early error checking are needed"
- Previous message: Steven T. Hatton: "Re: Why code completion and early error checking are needed"
- In reply to: Dave: "Storing a tree in a std::list<>"
- Next in thread: Dave: "Re: Storing a tree in a std::list<>"
- Reply: Dave: "Re: Storing a tree in a std::list<>"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
