Vector Assign vs Vector operator=

[Chris Roth]

vector<doublev1 (5,1);
vector<doublev2 ;

v2 = v1; // 1
v2.assign(v1.be gin(),v1.end()) ; // 2

Are 1 and 2 the same, or are their subtle differences between them.
Which is preferable, if either? And yes, I know I could use the
construction vector<doublev2 (v1), but I'm giving an example above.

Thank you c++ users.

[John Harrison]

Chris Roth wrote:

vector<doublev1 (5,1);
vector<doublev2 ;

v2 = v1; // 1
v2.assign(v1.be gin(),v1.end()) ; // 2

Are 1 and 2 the same, or are their subtle differences between them.
Which is preferable, if either? And yes, I know I could use the
construction vector<doublev2 (v1), but I'm giving an example above.

Thank you c++ users.

No observable difference between them, but 1 is clearly better since it
is clearer to any reader of the code. With 2 you have to check the
arguments to understand the meaning.

john

[red floyd]

Chris Roth wrote:

vector<doublev1 (5,1);
vector<doublev2 ;

v2 = v1; // 1
v2.assign(v1.be gin(),v1.end()) ; // 2

Are 1 and 2 the same, or are their subtle differences between them.
Which is preferable, if either? And yes, I know I could use the
construction vector<doublev2 (v1), but I'm giving an example above.

As John said, there's probably no detectable difference. The latter
construct (assign) is more useful when you want to copy a subvector.

e.g.:

vector<doublev1 ;
vector<doublev2 ;

// fill v1 here.

vector<double>: :iterator start_iter = some_iterator_i nto_v1;
vector<double>: :iterator end_iter = some_other_iter ator_into_v1;

v2.assign(start _iter, end_iter);

[jlongstreet]

On Feb 21, 4:40 pm, red floyd <no.s...@here.d udewrote:

Chris Roth wrote:

vector<doublev1 (5,1);
vector<doublev2 ;

v2 = v1; // 1
v2.assign(v1.be gin(),v1.end()) ; // 2

Are 1 and 2 the same, or are their subtle differences between them.
Which is preferable, if either? And yes, I know I could use the
construction vector<doublev2 (v1), but I'm giving an example above.

As John said, there's probably no detectable difference. The latter
construct (assign) is more useful when you want to copy a subvector.

e.g.:

vector<doublev1 ;
vector<doublev2 ;

// fill v1 here.

vector<double>: :iterator start_iter = some_iterator_i nto_v1;
vector<double>: :iterator end_iter = some_other_iter ator_into_v1;

v2.assign(start _iter, end_iter);

Also, using assign allows you to assign across container types:

vector<intv;
list<intll;

// fill ll here

v.assign(ll.beg in(), ll.end());

[Ron Natalie]

red floyd wrote:

Chris Roth wrote:

>vector<doublev 1(5,1);
vector<doublev 2;

v2 = v1; // 1
v2.assign(v1.b egin(),v1.end() ); // 2

Are 1 and 2 the same, or are their subtle differences between them.
Which is preferable, if either? And yes, I know I could use the
construction vector<doublev2 (v1), but I'm giving an example above.

As John said, there's probably no detectable difference. The latter
construct (assign) is more useful when you want to copy a subvector.

In case 1, v1 must be a vector.
In case 2, v1 can be anything provided that the iterators returned
are of a type that's insertable into v2.