I want to splice the range [first, last]
, with both endpoints inclusive. I have iterators to the element before first
and to last
. I could do it with splice_after()
but only in linear time.
I belive this splice can be done in constant time. How can I do it with std::forward_list
?
If the question is not clear, here as is an example code showing my problem:
Code on Live Work Space
#include <algorithm>
#include <forward_list>
#include <iostream>
#include <iterator>
using namespace std;
int main() {
forward_list<char> trg{'a','b','c'};
forward_list<char> src{'1','2','3','4'};
auto before_first = src.begin();
auto last = find(src.begin(), src.end(), '4');
cout << "before_first = " << *before_first << ", last = " << *last << "\n";
// trg.splice(trg.begin(), src, before_first, last); // no such splice
auto end = last;
++end; // Ouch! splice has to find last again although I already had it :(
trg.splice_after(trg.begin(), src, before_first, end);
cout << "Target after splice:\n";
copy(trg.begin(), trg.end(), ostream_iterator<char>(cout," "));
cout << "\nSource after splice:\n";
copy(src.begin(), src.end(), ostream_iterator<char>(cout," "));
cout << endl;
}
Output:
before_first = 1, last = 4
Target after splice:
a 2 3 4 b c
Source after splice:
1
The specification of forward_list
says that the range (first, last)
should be spliced, and there is unfortunately no way to do this in O(1) time because one needs access to last-1
to do that, and the only way to get access to last-1
is to iterate forward from first
.
Had the spec been to splice the range (first, last]
, then an O(1) splice would be possible. I know of no way to achieve this with the current forward_list
spec.
I think it is a defect. However I've already tried and failed to fix it:
However issues have been reversed in the past, especially when complaints come in from non-committee members such as yourself. The way to file a complaint is to open a new issue, referencing any old or related issues if appropriate. The instructions for opening an issue are here.
PS: +1 on the question.