8 Jul
2004
8 Jul
'04
4:12 p.m.
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov@mmltd.net> wrote in message news:013e01c464e5$980fd7c0$0600a8c0@pdimov...
David Abrahams wrote:
"Andy Little" <andy@servocomm.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
"Dave Harris" <brangdon@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote
In-Reply-To: <cch4as$941$1@sea.gmane.org>
has no direct equivalent. It becomes: v.clear(); v << 1 << 2 << 3;
or v <<= 1 << 2 << 3;
surely not ;-)
*maybe* it would be
(v <<= 1) << 2 << 3
Or maybe we should just use
int cv[] = { 1, 2, 3 }; v.assign( cv, end(cv) );
as I've been doing for years.
What??? No 'static' in front of cv??? :o) Now seriously, 'static' can improve performance, and 'const' wouldn't hurt, either. Andrei