me22 wrote:
> vector::operator[] does not throw exceptions
> for out-of-range indexes, so I was surprised that Row does.
I consider that a design error in STL. Unchecked array indexing is sooo
last millennium. I stick by Row::operator[]() being implemented in
terms of vector::at() under the hood.
> it seems that operator[] is actually calling the vector's at.
> That seems like a waste of time, since it's already checked that the
> index is valid.
That's true for char* indexes, but not for int. I can see changing the
char* case to use vector::operator[] instead. I can't study it right
now, but consider it on the wishlist for 3.0.7.
> And in the case that the index *is* out of range, it
> throws a custom exception, not the one from vector::at, contrary to
> the documentation.
Hmmm, yes, I'll have to think about this, too. I'm not sure if the
exceptions need to be harmonized, or the docs need to be clarified.
