sergio masci wrote:

>> Including against your own... you already said that you don't
>> consider the C++ function std::list::insert an intrinsic function.
>> But it's this type of function that I'm talking about.
> 
> Yes I have already said that I do not consider 'std::list::insert'
> intrinsic and I still don't. The reason is simple, there is no
> specialised code built into the C++ compiler that looks out for ***
> AND *** treats 'std::list::insert' in a special way.

Maybe there isn't (do you know for sure?), but there could be (given
that the meaning 'std::list::insert' is just as defined by the language
standard as the meaning of 'else'). Is there any reason why there
couldn't be? I'm still talking about your first example, replacing a
'delete' followed by an 'insert' with a 'replace' (given that all three
a suitably defined).

IMO, if this is a correct replacement, the compiler can make it,
independently whether the three are implemented in a standard library or
by the compiler. IMO, you haven't yet brought up a good reason why not.

Gerhard
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist