I saw that code in a book. This got to be a typepo right? Becuuse list::end() or list::begin() don't take any argument.Code:typedef pair<int,int> IntegerPair; typedef list<IntegerPair> VertexList; int u; for (VertexList::const_iterator ci = graph.begin(u); ci != graph.end(u); ++ci)
"All that we see or seem
Is but a dream within a dream." - Poe
So test your idea with some real code on a real compiler.
Yes, a book can have bugs just the same as anything else.
And yes, some books can have more bugs than others.
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
I'd understand bugs; but stuff that doesn't even compile is a joke.Originally Posted by Salem
Even K&R has mistakes which cause examples not to compile.
At least the mistakes show who is paying attention (and not just copy/pasting from the book to the homework).
If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
