Comment Re:I don't know why this dominates the first page. (Score 1) 690
std::copy vs.
int n;
while (cin >> n)
v.push_back (n);
Once you put in some braces to limit the lifetime and scope of n (your temporary), and when you factor in the implicit boolean conversion in the while clause, and the fact the code that calls 'copy' to perform a copying operation, I don't think you have much of a readability case. You have 5 lines (including enclosing braces) where std::copy needs 1.
On auto_ptr, perhaps you're forgetting that the intended use is to convert dynamic lifetime into scoped lifetime, like the built-ins. Eg. having member auto_ptrs instead of member pointers (and therefore the dtor doesn't have to call delete). Yes, I agree it is stupid to write Java style C++ new-ing every object instance, where a stack instance would work, giving you immediate, simple lifetime control (by tieing it to scope).
int n;
while (cin >> n)
v.push_back (n);
Once you put in some braces to limit the lifetime and scope of n (your temporary), and when you factor in the implicit boolean conversion in the while clause, and the fact the code that calls 'copy' to perform a copying operation, I don't think you have much of a readability case. You have 5 lines (including enclosing braces) where std::copy needs 1.
On auto_ptr, perhaps you're forgetting that the intended use is to convert dynamic lifetime into scoped lifetime, like the built-ins. Eg. having member auto_ptrs instead of member pointers (and therefore the dtor doesn't have to call delete). Yes, I agree it is stupid to write Java style C++ new-ing every object instance, where a stack instance would work, giving you immediate, simple lifetime control (by tieing it to scope).
