simple question - another way

Hello

I have:

Code:

---

std::list<std::string> _list;
std::list<std::string>::iterator it = _list.begin();

---

How can I write this in one line:

Code:

---

++it;
if (it == list.end()) { it = list.begin(); }

---

something like:

Code:

---

it = (it == list.end()) ? list.begin() : ++it;

---

will make it crash when it comes to the end of list..

Thanks for help

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by l2u

something like:

Code:

---

it = (it == list.end()) ? list.begin() : ++it;

---

will make it crash when it comes to the end of list..

---

If I'm understanding your problem correctly...

Code:

---

if (++it == list.end()) it = list.begin();

---

Incidentally, you shouldn't start identifier names with underscores. Those are generally reserved for the compiler's internal use.

Why try to make it shorter ? Shorter code, in this situation, yields only more errors. The problem occurs because pre-increment and post-increment have a higher operator precedence than the if-else ternary operator ? : . You want to use it += 1. I advise you to use the longer version though. It is much easier to read. Also try indenting your code more (2 braces on a single line.. *sigh*) and try not to use underscores before a variable name, as they are reserved for the implementor, if I remember.

Not to start a flamewar or anything, but I'd argue that it++ is easier to read, and to any experienced C/C++ programmer, makes it clear that it is an increment, as opposed to a simple multiple of 1 that might be changed to 2 or 3 at another time. As for putting it all in one line, perhaps that is not the best idea.

if (++it == list.end()) it = list.begin();
Seems readable.

+= 1 doesn't work for std::list iterators anyway.

What is the exact problem you want to solve? I find none of the snippets posted so far readable.

Code:

---

++it;
if (it == list.end()) { it = list.begin(); }

---

and

Code:

---

it = (it == list.end()) ? list.begin() : ++it;

---

do two different things. One increments before the check against end(), the other increments after.

I prefer:

Code:

---

if (++it == list.end())
    it = list.begin();

---

or

Code:

---

if (it == list.end())
    it = list.begin();
++it;

---

depending on which you meant to do.

Is there any way to check if interator has higher operator precedence (if it is bad)?

iterators aren't operators, therefore they have no precedence.

You can look up the iterator precedences in your favourite C++ reference. They cannot be changed, and new iterators cannot be defined.