Re: About replacing some "C-Array" into std::array

On 23 Nov 2019, at 5:05 am, Luboš Luňák <l.lunak@collabora.com> wrote:
> On Friday 22 of November 2019, julien2412 wrote:
> > The goal is to replace some loops with std::<algo> . Of course, I don't
> > want to use std::<algo> if I need to add a complicated lambda.
> > About "don't fix what is not broken", I disagree here.
> > What about removing unused parts and optimizing? After all unused parts and
> > not optimized parts don't break anything that's not a reason for not
> > modifying them.
>
> That depends on definition of "broken". Unused or slow code may fit that.
>
> You asked for a guideline, not for a hard rule. I said I'm not against it per 
> se.
>
> > - time to build the whole code
>
> Note that STL usage generally makes compilation slower, so this argument 
> doesn't fit here as an argument for this topic.
>
> > > [**] Which is not that hard given how clunky STL usage can be. I would
> > > personally consider converting that transfer.cxx line to std::fill() to
> > > be a
> > > regression in readability. If STL, then it should be std::array::fill().
> >
> > So if you consider replacing:
> > for (sal_Bool & rb : pToAccept)
> >     rb = false;
> > by
> >    std::fill_n(pToAccept, 128, false);
> > is a readability regression
>
> I didn't think of std::fill_n(). I wrote std::fill() and here "std::fill( 
> pToAccept.begin(), pToAccept.end(), false )" is worse. But even the 
> std::fill_n() case is debatable because of the need to specify size. Which is 
> why I said that std::array with its fill() would actually fit better here.
>
> -- 
> Luboš Luňák
> l.lunak@collabora.com

I thought that std::fill was used to try to avoid bounds errors. In particular, the example given 
in the CppCoreGuidelines is to replace memset. 

Chris