Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: [PATCH] monotone ls authors

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 10:16:35AM -0800, Steven E. Harris wrote:
> Bruce Stephens <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > +  for (vector< revision<cert> >::const_iterator i = certs.begin();
> > +       i != certs.end(); ++i)
> 
> Why keep checking against an end that doesn't change?
> 
>   for (vector< revision<cert> >::const_iterator i = certs.begin(),
>                                                 end = certs.end();
>        i != end; ++i)

Ack, don't do this!  It's completely against the idiom, uglifies the
code, and does _not_ improve performance.  (end() is inlined anyway!)

> > +  for (std::set< cert_value >::const_iterator i = authors.begin();
> > +       i != authors.end(); ++i)
> +    {
> +      cout << *i << endl;
> +    }
> 
> How about std::copy to std::ostream_iterator?
> 
>   #include <algorithm>
>   #include <iterator>
> 
>   std::copy( authors.begin(), authors.end(),
>              std::ostream_iterator<cret_value>( std::cout, "\n" ) );

It's an option.  The two seem pretty similar to me, I certainly
wouldn't reject a patch for using the former style.

-- Nathaniel

-- 
"On arrival in my ward I was immediately served with lunch. `This is
what you ordered yesterday.' I pointed out that I had just arrived,
only to be told: `This is what your bed ordered.'"
  -- Letter to the Editor, The Times, September 2000