Quick question about memory allocation

I disagree, but this isn't the place to discuss that.

I agree this is not the right thread.

I disagree that it's technically possible to add a large number of items to a linked list, no matter how well designed, compared to a vector that does block allocations. That's like saying "You can make a standard off-the-forecourt car go as fast as a dedicated race-car". Linked lists are good at certain things - like inserting or deleting single elements. But adding/deleting large numbers of elements is not one of the strengths of a linked list.

--
Mats

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CornedBee

Code:

---

for(int i = n-1; i >= 0; --i)

---

---

This one puzzles me. Any particular reason you're using --i instead of i--? I can't make out any difference to a for-header.

Some kind of convention for reverse iteration?

Doesn't matter. It's a matter of style when using it there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Araanor

This one puzzles me. Any particular reason you're using --i instead of i--? I can't make out any difference to a for-header.

Some kind of convention for reverse iteration?

---

I always use prefix instead of postfix operators unless I actually need the old value first.
Most compilers should optimize them both to the same thing, but I just think it's a good habit to get into.

Postfix increment/decrement are slower for custom objects, because they create a copy of the current object and return it by value, whereas prefix simply returns itself by reference.

For primitives, it makes no difference, but I like my programming style to not depend on the type of the variable I'm dealing with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cpjust

Most compilers should optimize them both to the same thing, but I just think it's a good habit to get into.

---

The compiler can only optimize it away if the constructor for the type has no side effects. Yet another reason to strive for empty constructor bodies, IMHO.