[Interest] Help, please !!!
realnc at gmail.com
Fri Apr 27 01:13:43 CEST 2012
On 27/04/12 01:48, Scott Aron Bloom wrote:
> I'm not sure if you're serious or are trolling me for fun. I *do* have
> a sense of humor, but this one I don't get :-/
> How is this "wrong?" You claim that if you do:
> QList<int> someOtherList;
> QList< QList<int> > list;
> you are able to modify 'someOtherList' through 'list'. You just can't.
> Not the list, and also not its contents (since they're 'int', not
> 'int*'). If you really are serious about what you're saying, even after
> this discussion, then I have to give up.
> It has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE int vs int*,
I only mentioned it in passing.
> It has EVERYTHING to do with
> you are sending in a const copy of the someOtherList...
Actually that's also wrong. You are not sending a const copy. You are
sending a const reference. But it doesn't matter. That's just an
implementation detail done for optimization reasons. You cannot modify
it and it has to be treated as a copy.
>> If the container list, allowed for non-const parameters passing (like
>> it could in Qt 3.0) You COULD "copy" the original and modify it.
> Isn't that the point? That you CANNOT modify it through the copy,
> therefore if you do need to modify it you need a pointer rather than a
> copy? But at the same time you claim the opposite.
> Or this is some kind of miscommunication.
> I claim, that with implicit sharing YOU CAN MODIFY the original list...
> however, not via the constant.. Try using the operator instead.
I already did and demonstrated that the original does not get modified:
listOfLists = 9;
qDebug() << listOfLists << listOfInts;
Using listOfLists to modify listOfInts does NOT work. Why don't
you try the above yourself?
>> But keeping a pointer to something on the stack, that could go out of
>> scope, is VERY VERY dangerous...
> No one claimed otherwise.
> You did when you suggested you use
> push(&otherList )
I did not "suggest" this. This was listed, inside a comment, as an
example. No one can suggest anything, because the OP did not state what
it is he wanted to put in the list. So I wrote:
I am not teaching basic C++ whenever I post a solution to a problem :-/
I assume that everybody knows that variables not created on the heap
get destroyed when they go out of scope.
> You are coming to the correct conclusing, but not for the correct
> reason.. Using append/pushback etc, the list is copied using a const
> reference to the data..
Again, it is not copied, a const reference is held. But it doesn't matter.
> Implicit sharing or not, will not allow modifications on either the copy
> or the original to propagate to the other
Then what exactly is the issue here? You end up agreeing with me, but
there seems to be still some kind of issue?
More information about the Interest