Fix warnings

#54 (closed)

Done:

• No warnings left.
• I also added a virtual destructor to the iterator class, since it was missing and the memory of the two pointers from the child classes was lost.
• Limited some of the iterator internal stuff to private.

TODO?

• I was looking at the child iterator classes and I don't understand why the ptr_ members are there. We have the data pointer and the index and that should be everything that we need, so I assume that ptr_ could be removed still.
• The access operators currently allow changing the values in the buffer. Should that be the case? Currently a reference is returned (instead of const reference). So basically I would say we need a "const_iterator" type of object.

changed milestone to %7.0.0

requested review from @al.schwinn

added 3 commits

• 1fa5f9d3 - 1 commit from branch master
• c9cec88d - Address unused parameter warnings
• 0ade3e0b - Implement copy constructor to address the warning

Compare with previous version

• No warnings left.
• I also added a virtual destructor to the iterator class, since it was missing and the memory of the two pointers from the child classes was lost.
• Limited some of the iterator internal stuff to private.

...lgtm, merging

TODO?

• I was looking at the child iterator classes and I don't understand why the ptr_ members are there. We have the data pointer and the index and that should be everything that we need, so I assume that ptr_ could be removed still.

You are right .. I don't remember if ptr_ possibly had some justification in the past ... now it looks like it is redundant and could be removed … I'll open an issue

• The access operators currently allow changing the values in the buffer. Should that be the case? Currently a reference is returned (instead of const reference). So basically I would say we need a "const_iterator" type of object.

Yea, the only place where buffer values are supposed to be changed are the different "push" methods, in which anyhow only the index is returned. So agreed, it probably should be a "const_iterator" ... another issue

merged

mentioned in issue #55 (closed)

mentioned in issue #56 (closed)

#55 (closed) and #56 (closed)

... I'll create another milestone for these (and few other issues) … or do you want to have it fixed for 7.0.0 for some reason ?

That's fine for me.