dev-cpp-users

[Dev-C++] STL::Vector

[Michael S. <mic...@nu...>]

Included with Dev-C++ are the STL classes, among which I found "vector".
I need it to get a dynamic array in my program.
Now I read in a book that I shouldn=B4t put pointers in STL classes, but =
I don=B4t understand why.
Could someone please explain me why, and whether there are other =
possibilities to creae a dynamic array of pointers?

Re: [Dev-C++] STL::Vector

[Ioannis V. <no...@ho...>]

-------Original Message-------=0D
 =0D
From: Michael Stather=0D
Date: =C4=E5=F5=F4=DD=F1=E1, 27 =C9=E1=ED=EF=F5=DC=F1=E9=EF=F2 2003 6:09:=
30 =EC=EC=0D
To: dev...@li...=0D
Subject: [Dev-C++] STL::Vector=0D
 =0D
Included with Dev-C++ are the STL classes, among which I found "vector".=0D
I need it to get a dynamic array in my program.=0D
 =0D
 =0D
=3D=3D> Good, and always use vector and standard containers instead of bu=
ilt in
arrays.=0D
 =0D
 =0D
 =0D
Now I read in a book that I shouldn=B4t put pointers in STL classes, but =
I
don=B4t understand why.=0D
 =0D
 =0D
=3D=3D> Apparently the book is stupid. Bad advice. Probably it meant to a=
void
using pointers whenever you can, but this is very different than to not u=
se
vectors with pointers (in case you can't avoid pointers).=0D
 =0D
 =0D
 =0D
 =0D
Could someone please explain me why, and whether there are other
possibilities to creae a dynamic array of pointers?=0D
 =0D
 =0D
=3D=3D> There are other standard library containers too, but since you wa=
nt an=20
array of pointers" vector is the best choice.=0D
 =0D
 =0D
 =0D
Ioannis Vranos=0D
 =0D
* Programming pages: http://www.noicys.freeurl.com=0D
* Alternative URL: http://run.to/noicys=20

Re: [Dev-C++] STL::Vector

[Per W. <pw...@ia...>]

One point about putting a 'naked' pointer into different kind of
containers, is that the pointer doesn't have a destructor to release the
referenced memory.

/Per W

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Ioannis Vranos wrote:

> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Michael Stather
> Date: =C4=E5=F5=F4=DD=F1=E1, 27 =C9=E1=ED=EF=F5=DC=F1=E9=EF=F2 2003 6:09:=
30 =EC=EC
> To: dev...@li...
> Subject: [Dev-C++] STL::Vector
>
> Included with Dev-C++ are the STL classes, among which I found "vector".
> I need it to get a dynamic array in my program.
>
>
> =3D=3D> Good, and always use vector and standard containers instead of bu=
ilt in
> arrays.
>
>
>
> Now I read in a book that I shouldn=B4t put pointers in STL classes, but =
I
> don=B4t understand why.
>
>
> =3D=3D> Apparently the book is stupid. Bad advice. Probably it meant to a=
void
> using pointers whenever you can, but this is very different than to not u=
se
> vectors with pointers (in case you can't avoid pointers).
>
>
>
>
> Could someone please explain me why, an

Re: [Dev-C++] STL::Vector

[Ioannis V. <no...@ho...>]

-------Original Message-------=0D
 =0D
From: Per Westermark=0D
Date: =D4=F1=DF=F4=E7, 28 =C9=E1=ED=EF=F5=DC=F1=E9=EF=F2 2003 3:01:54 =F0=
=EC=0D
To: Ioannis Vranos=0D
Cc: dev...@li...=0D
Subject: Re: [Dev-C++] STL::Vector=0D
 =0D
One point about putting a 'naked' pointer into different kind of=0D
containers, is that the pointer doesn't have a destructor to release the=0D
referenced memory.=0D
=0D
/Per W=0D
=0D
=0D
=3D=3D> I agree with that, including built in arrays. So he must delete o=
bjects
pointed by pointers manually. This doesn't mean anything however against
using vectors of pointers in place of built in arrays with pointers.=0D
=0D
=0D
Ioannis Vranos=0D
=0D
* Programming pages: http://www.noicys.freeurl.com=0D
* Alternative URL: http://run.to/noicys=20

Re: [Dev-C++] STL::Vector

[Per W. <pw...@ia...>]

Exactly, in both cases it's the programmers responsibility to know what
they are doing. But for native array you know what happens. With
containers, it's so easy to assume magic somewhere inside.

/Per W

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Ioannis Vranos wrote:

> -------Original Message-------
>
> From: Per Westermark
> Date: =D4=F1=DF=F4=E7, 28 =C9=E1=ED=EF=F5=DC=F1=E9=EF=F2 2003 3:01:54 =F0=
=EC
> To: Ioannis Vranos
> Cc: dev...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Dev-C++] STL::Vector
>
> One point about putting a 'naked' pointer into different kind of
> containers, is that the pointer doesn't have a destructor to release the
> referenced memory.
>
> /Per W
>
>
> =3D=3D> I agree with that, including built in arrays. So he must delete o=
bjects
> pointed by pointers manually. This doesn't mean anything however against
> using vectors of pointers in place of built in arrays with pointers.
>
>
> Ioannis Vranos
>
> * Programming pages: http://www.noicys.freeurl.com
> * Alternative URL: http://run.to/noicys

Re: [Dev-C++] STL::Vector

[Ioannis V. <no...@ho...>]

-------Original Message-------=0D
 =0D
From: Per Westermark=0D
Date: =D4=F1=DF=F4=E7, 28 =C9=E1=ED=EF=F5=DC=F1=E9=EF=F2 2003 10:33:10 =F0=
=EC=0D
To: Ioannis Vranos=0D
Cc: dev...@li...=0D
Subject: Re: [Dev-C++] STL::Vector=0D
 =0D
Exactly, in both cases it's the programmers responsibility to know what=0D
they are doing. But for native array you know what happens. With=0D
containers, it's so easy to assume magic somewhere inside.=0D
=0D
/Per W=0D
=0D
=0D
=3D=3D> If someone is clueless he can assume anything, even for built in =
arrays.=0D
=0D
=0D
=0D
Ioannis Vranos=0D
=0D
* Programming pages: http://www.noicys.freeurl.com=0D
* Alternative URL: http://run.to/noicys=20