Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #121687
| From | Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: Why is Usenet dead? |
| Date | 2025-02-20 22:39 +0200 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <vp83u2$306op$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <vp4u6v$2aqea$1@dont-email.me> <vp4v3o$2b3nh$1@dont-email.me> <20250219191518.000016c6@yahoo.com> <vp6qe1$2ou7l$1@dont-email.me> <p5qerj96rjdop8p6m1cuj89ejc77ahshiq@4ax.com> |
On 20.02.2025 19:39, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 08:51:13 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org > wrote: > >> On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 19:15:18 +0200 >> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> wibbled: >>> On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 15:58:48 -0000 (UTC) >>> Reimplementing double-linked list is fine if all you need is >>> double-linked list. It does not take more than 20 minutes and typically >>> you end up with code that fits requirements better than when you >>> take it from somebody else. >> >> Sure, its pretty simple. But a lot of younger C++ only coders wouldn't know >> where to start if asked to do it. As for them implementing a dynamic array >> using realloc(), pffft , forget it. Not that I'd bother now of course. > > You cannot implement std::vector in terms of realloc(). You can, for trivially relocatable types, which means most of the C++ value types even if they have non-trivial ctors and dtors. There is a C++26 proposal for formalizing that concept (https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p2786r11.html). Not sure if using specifically realloc would be a good idea though, I guess with current trends of massive multithreading and fixed size allocation pools there probably is no benefit in using realloc over an explicit malloc+memcpy.
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Why is Usenet dead? Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-16 10:47 +0000
Re: Why is Usenet dead? ImperiusDamian <dgwrightauthor@gmail.com> - 2025-02-16 23:59 -0500
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> - 2025-02-17 22:34 +0100
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-18 08:22 +0000
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2025-02-18 14:21 -0500
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-18 20:23 +0000
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-19 08:25 +0000
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2025-02-19 10:29 -0500
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-19 15:41 +0000
Re: Why is Usenet dead? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-02-19 16:43 +0100
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-19 15:58 +0000
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2025-02-19 19:15 +0200
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-19 18:14 +0000
Re: Why is Usenet dead? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2025-02-19 18:20 +0000
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-02-19 20:59 +0200
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-20 08:51 +0000
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-20 17:39 +0000
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-02-20 22:39 +0200
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-21 10:24 +0000
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-21 12:13 +0000
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-21 12:25 +0000
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org - 2025-02-21 10:23 +0000
Re: Why is Usenet dead? Mr Flibble <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2025-02-21 12:12 +0000
csiph-web