13:53, I have to correct you on that, that's a implementation detail, not a given. You can store linked lists as both itself and a dynamic array using a single pointer to a list of pointers, 0 will naturally be the head and count-1 will naturally be the foot of the array, every pointed object would store it's index and when they're moved about they just need to have that index updated, unless you move things about hundreds of times you will not notice any slow down as a result of the index updating, alternatively the index can be implied just by searching for the matching pointer in the array
8:00 This code looks a little funny. Did something change in C++ where `delete first;` no longer just means destruct and deallocate an object created with `new` on the heap?
I think that snippet of code contains a bug. 'first' should be declared as vector* first. Unless operator delete(vector&) noexcept is defined as a static member function void vector::operator delete(vector& first) noexcept or a global void ::operator delete(vector&) noexcept function that snippet of code won't compile, because first is not a pointer and there is no overloaded operator delete(vector&) defined as a static member function of vector or a global function in the shown example.
Thank you for reuploading a fixed version
23:30 - "std::forward_list for{1,2,3};" seems like the worst name one could use. Thankfully such code does not compile.
13:53, I have to correct you on that, that's a implementation detail, not a given. You can store linked lists as both itself and a dynamic array using a single pointer to a list of pointers, 0 will naturally be the head and count-1 will naturally be the foot of the array, every pointed object would store it's index and when they're moved about they just need to have that index updated, unless you move things about hundreds of times you will not notice any slow down as a result of the index updating, alternatively the index can be implied just by searching for the matching pointer in the array
8:00 This code looks a little funny. Did something change in C++ where `delete first;` no longer just means destruct and deallocate an object created with `new` on the heap?
I think that snippet of code contains a bug. 'first' should be declared as vector* first. Unless operator delete(vector&) noexcept is defined as a static member function void vector::operator delete(vector& first) noexcept or a global void ::operator delete(vector&) noexcept function that snippet of code won't compile, because first is not a pointer and there is no overloaded operator delete(vector&) defined as a static member function of vector or a global function in the shown example.
It's wrong and won't compile.
What is said at 4:14-4:15 - sounds like "std::alobet"? The auto-generated captions are doing an OK job but far from perfect.
Couldn't make out what he said there either. Maybe he meant 'something map or arrays'? Maybe multimap or unordered map? or something map.
I'd assume so
Is it pending Re-upload of desync video?
I do not have desync problem.