3 ms·
I'm not sure what you mean. You don't have to deal with index variables in a for loop: for item in iterator { vector.push_back(foo(item)); } Y
by throwaway894345 4y ago
I'm not sure what you mean. You don't have to deal with index variables in a for loop:
for item in iterator {
vector.push_back(foo(item));
}
You're not explicitly indexing the source iterator or the destination vector at any point.
- nomel 4y agoAgreed. That's why I enjoy iterators, and use them whenever possible. I think they're important.
- throwaway894345 4y agoBut earlier you claimed the for-loop version required index variables and indexing into iterators/vectors/etc ... ?
- nomel 4y agoI clearly said the opposite, in response to, what appeared to be, your suggestion that indexing isn't so bad: "I think people make too big a deal about iterators. The simple for loops that they’re fit to replace aren’t that hard to read or write, so they aren’t causing real problem"
- MauranKilom 4y agoIt seems like you imply that iterators = range-for and "simple loops" = indexing, which is clearly not what the previous poster has in mind (which was "range-for = imperative loops, iterators = functional style, simple loops = trivial loop body").
- throwaway894345 4y agoYes, I was responding to: > I disagree. If I can avoid an index variable, I’m going to have less bugs since I won’t have to index Which (given thread context) sounds pretty clearly like he's advocating against `for item in iterator {...}` and in favor of iterator chains. If there's another way of reading that comment, I'm not seeing it. :)