• Era Scarecrow <rtcvb32 yahoo.com> Jul 19 2008

Era Scarecrow <rtcvb32 yahoo.com> writes:

Simen Kjaeraas wrote:
 JAnderson wrote:
 Max Samukha wrote:
 On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 01:23:30 +0400,






 <2korden+dmd gmail.com> wrote:

 But you still have to remove a dead








 delete *("x" in hash);
 hash.remove("x");


 If 'remove' was modified to return the






 syntax would be possible:

 delete hash.remove("x");

 Also, there would be no need to search for the






 introduce a temporary when the removed value






 processing:

 // do something with the value, for example,






 foo(hash.remove("x"));

 instead of:
 auto v = hash["x"];
 hash.remove("x");
 foo(v);




 Seconded!

 Regan Heath


 Thirded!


 I'm always interested in using more compact and more general versions of
functions, rather than having to take more steps, so Fourthed!