From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,55f6e230b02eff2f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.buerger.net!nuzba.szn.dk!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Containers - nontrivial element access
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 21:34:49 -0500
Organization: Jacob's private Usenet server
Message-ID: <fdsait$bi2$1@jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <1191275759.184463.238350@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: jacob-sparre.dk 1191292317 11842 69.95.181.76 (2 Oct 2007 02:31:57
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 02:31:57 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1896
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:2243
Date: 2007-10-01T21:34:49-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Maciej Sobczak" <see.my.homepage@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1191275759.184463.238350@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
...
> I would like to swap salaries of two guys which I can refer with the
> index/iterator/cursor/etc. The reference method is not really
> important - what is important is the problem of modifying more than
> one element in the container.

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.)

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).

                               Randy.