Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 641719
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 13, 20262026-05-13T21:05:36+00:00 2026-05-13T21:05:36+00:00

I have a class that spawns an arbitrary number of worker object that compute

  • 0

I have a class that spawns an arbitrary number of worker object that compute their results into a std::vector. I’m going to remove some of the worker objects at certain points but I’d like to keep their results in a certain ordering only known to the class that spawned them. Thus I’m providing the vectors for the output in the class A.

I have (IMO) three options: I could either have pointers to the vectors, references or iterators as members. While the iterator option has certain draw backs (The iterator could be incremented.) I’m unsure if pointers or references are clearer.
I feel references are better because they can’t be NULL and a cruncher would require the presence of a vector.

What I’m most unsure about is the validity of the references. Will they be invalidated by some operations on the std::list< std::vector<int> >? Are those operations the same as invalidating the iterators of std::list? Is there another approach I don’t see right now? Also the coupling to a container doesn’t feel right: I force a specific container to the Cruncher class.

Code provided for clarity:

#include <list>
#include <vector>
#include <boost/ptr_container/ptr_list.hpp>

class Cruncher {
  std::vector<int>* numPointer;
  std::vector<int>& numRef;
  std::list< std::vector<int> >::iterator numIterator;
public:
  Cruncher(std::vector<int>*);
  Cruncher(std::vector<int>&);
  Cruncher(std::list< std::vector<int> >::iterator);
};

class A {
  std::list< std::vector<int> > container;
  boost::ptr_list< std::vector<int> > container2;
  std::vector<Cruncher> cruncherList;
};
  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-13T21:05:36+00:00Added an answer on May 13, 2026 at 9:05 pm

    If an iterator is invalidated, it would also invalidate a pointer/reference that the iterator was converted into. If you have this:

    std::vector<T>::iterator it = ...;
    T *p = &(*it);
    T &r = *p;
    

    if the iterator is invalidated (for example a call to push_back can invalidate all existing vector iterators), the pointer and the reference will also be invalidated.

    From the standard 23.2.4.2/5 (vector capacity):

    Notes: Reallocation invalidates all the references, pointers, and iterators referring to the elements in the sequence.

    The same general principal holds for std::list. If an iterator is invalidated, the pointers and references the iterator is converted into are also invalidated.

    The difference between std::list and std::vector is what causes iterator invalidation. A std::list iterator is valid as long as you don’t remove the element it is referring to. So where as std::vector<>::push_back can invalidate an iterator, std::list<>::push_back cannot.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have a project that adds elements to an AutoCad drawing. I noticed that
I have a script that appends some rows to a table. One of the
I have a new web app that is packaged as a WAR as part
Let say I have the following desire, to simplify the IConvertible's to allow me
My question is about memory use and objects in actionscript 2. If I have
I have several USB mass storage flash drives connected to a Ubuntu Linux computer
I have a snippet to create a 'Like' button for our news site: <iframe
I have found this example on StackOverflow: var people = new List<Person> { new
I have a login.jsp page which contains a login form. Once logged in the
After having read Ian Boyd 's constructor series questions ( 1 , 2 ,

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.