Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by masklinn 2674 days ago
Except Rust's [] behaves like C++'s at (checks and aborts). C++'s [] is called `get_unchecked`.
1 comments
int_19h 2674 days ago
C++ at() doesn't check and abort, it checks and throws a specific documented exception that you can catch. So it is, in fact, closer to get(), just using a very inefficient way of reporting.
link
masklinn 2673 days ago
> C++ at() doesn't check and abort, it checks and throws a specific documented exception that you can catch. So it is, in fact, closer to get(), just using a very inefficient way of reporting.

You can catch a panic, and you can compile C++ with -fno-exception. at() is not closer to get() than to [].

link
pjmlp 2673 days ago
If you do that, you will be invoking nasal daemons, as at() is required by ISO C++ to throw.
link
jcelerier 2673 days ago
thankfully, ISO C++ is a language that no one actually programs in, everyone use `MSVC C++`, `g++ 8.2.1 -fwhatever`, etc
link
pjmlp 2673 days ago
On real world where code portability actually matters, many do program against ISO C++, and have to deal with workarounds for lack of compliance.

Not doing so means ending up with situations like the Linux kernel, Windows or console games, which might be ok, when code portability doesn't matter to start with.

link