Re: Containers - nontrivial element access

[Matthew Heaney <mheaney@on2.com>]

On Oct 1, 10:34 pm, "Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:

> Why don't you just use the Swap operation of the containers? One would
> presume that it is implemented as efficiently as possible. (Surely if you
> are using the indefinite version of the containers, it would just be a
> pointer swap; might be a copy with the definite version of vectors, but that
> couldn't be avoided as the object order is significant in that sort of
> implementation.)

But he's trying to swap one component of a element (which happens to
be a record).  The swap operation for container swaps entire elements,
which is not what he wants.

> That surely seems better than using explicit pointers; in most cases,
> worries about efficiency are premature (and when they're not, you probably
> shouldn't be using the predefined containers anyway).

Agreed, you certainly don't need explicit pointers to solve thish
problem.  The solution I showed in my earlier post does exact what the
C++ solution does; there is no effciciency issue.