Return Type of std::copy()

I was just wondering why std::copy() returns an OutputIterator.

Code:

template<class InputIterator, class OutputIterator>


OutputIterator copy ( InputIterator first, InputIterator last, OutputIterator result )
{
    while (first!=last) 
        *result++ = *first++;
    
    return result;
}

when it could have returned void, which works in almost the same way. Is there any valid usage of the iterator returned by copy() ?

>> Is there any valid usage of the iterator returned by copy() ?

Yes. I'm tempted to say use your imagination.

What if you wanted to copy two data structures into one, with only two copy calls? Suddenly the return value is useful.

Well, I guess it's useful in cases where you need the next position at which you can add stuff after the copying.

when it could have returned void, which works in almost the same way.

O_o

Do have any idea how foolish "Returning `void' works almost the same way as returning `iterator'!' sounds?

It could have returned no other thing and been as useful.

Is there any valid usage of the iterator returned by copy()?

If you don't even know why the iterator is returned then why are you saying it should have just returned `void'?

Of course there is a valid usage. The input can constitute and unknown range and the output can reference an unknown iterator into an unknown data structure. Knowing the iterator to the "next item" is the only way of propagating the information about the consumed and generated range without counting the elements within that range which is as natural to propagating that range as breathing.

*shrug*

I know you are a newbie, but in the future ask your questions about things you don't know without the fluff of commenting on things you don't understand.

Soma

Originally Posted by whiteflags

>> Is there any valid usage of the iterator returned by copy() ?

Yes. I'm tempted to say use your imagination.

What if you wanted to copy two data structures into one, with only two copy calls? Suddenly the return value is useful.

couldnt it be done somewhat like this:

Code:

copy(X1.begin(), X1.end(), inserter(X3, X3.begin()));


copy(X2.begin(), X2.end(), inserter(X3, X3.end()));

Do correct me if am wrong .

Originally Posted by phantomotap

I know you are a newbie, but in the future ask your questions about things you don't know without the fluff of commenting on things you don't understand.

I just thought of it as clarifying as to why I was asking the question in the first place. I apologize for it

@R41D3N: Yes, you can do it that way, but for the purposes of my example, you can't do it that way. That's how I feel about it. Nya nya!

@whiteflags: thought so ... back to some brain storming