• 목록
• 답변
• 게시판 리스트 옵션
  • 수정
  • 삭제

That's, vi is homogeneous in that every one its parts are Shapes (to be precise, pointers to Shapes) and heterogeneous in the sense that vi can hold parts of a wide variety of Shapes, similar to Circles, Triangles, and many others. So, in a way all containers (in every language) are homogenous as a result of to use them there have to be a standard interface to all elements for customers to rely on. Naturally, if you utilize pointers, you've gotten to consider useful resource management, however containers of pointers can themselves be effective and low-cost resource handles (typically, you want a container with a destructor for deleting the "owned" objects). So, assume that you really want a list and you could provide a link field for each aspect kind. If there may be a real need for "capping" a category hierarchy to avoid digital operate calls, one would possibly ask why these features are digital in the first place.

Why doesn't my constructor work right? This one proper here. For example, Java collections present containers of (references to) Objects and you employ the (common) Object interface to find the true kind of an element. The distinction is most obvious when you want to allocate an object of a consumer-outlined kind with non-trivial initialization semantics. If you happen to desire a container to hold parts of a number of differing kinds, you will need to categorical that both as a union or (normally much better) as a container of pointers to a polymorphic sort. Instead, both use a container of handles or a containers of pointers. The second regularly occuring genuine efficiency problem is the usage of a map for a lot of (string,X) pairs.

Use a hand-crafted intrusive lists solely where a list and the last ounce of performance is required. After measuring my code and Ehostingpoint.com repeatedly having hassle finding the efficiency benefits of reserve() in actual packages, I stopped using it except the place it is required to avoid iterator invalidation (a uncommon case in my code). I used to worry about that and used reserve() to optimize the growth. People sometimes worry about the cost of std::vector rising incrementally. For example, if Image had reference semantics, the code above would incur solely the price of a duplicate constructor https://interchicks.net call, which can be trivial in comparison with most picture manipulation operators. For example, in case you logically have a list of some integer parts, a vector is significantly sooner than a list (any listing). The standard-library listing by default performs an allocation adopted by a duplicate for each operation inserting an element (and a deallocation for every operation removing a component).