What if size argument for std::vector::resize is equal to the current size?












1















Reading the manual about vector::resize http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/vector/vector/resize/



It only says what happens if the size is greater or smaller, but does not say what happens if it's equal. Is it guaranteed that on equal size it will not reallocate the array and invalidate the iterators?



I wanted to avoid one branch and handle only 2 cases (>= or <) instead of 3 (< or > or ==), but if resizing to same size is undefined, then i will have to check that case too.






c++ vector containers dynamic-memory-allocation







share|improve this question























  • Given the info in the part "Exception safety", you can safely assume there is no reallocation on resize with the size being equal the the current size of the vector.

    – Croolman
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:19











  • The std::vector<> class is a template class, so you have the source code on your computer. You could look for yourself. Or you could write a test program and debug that. Or look at the assembler code that is generated. Or make a vector of a class that prints information when the copy constructor and/or the move constructor is called, and then see what happens. Besides that, I'm pretty sure that this case is checked in the vector's implementation and nothing is done then.

    – Rene
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:25











  • Don't read cplusplus.com, it's known to be wrong on several occassions.

    – n.m.
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:28











  • @n.m. note that in this case also cppreference is not clear on iterator invalidation. It has a note that "Vector capacity is never reduced when resizing to smaller size because that would invalidate all iterators, ..." but its not clearly states what iterators are invalidated in general

    – user463035818
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:30








  • 2





    If "same-size resizing" had any effect at all, it would be time for the entire C++ committee and the language implementers to retire.

    – molbdnilo
    Nov 23 '18 at 14:18


















1















Reading the manual about vector::resize http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/vector/vector/resize/



It only says what happens if the size is greater or smaller, but does not say what happens if it's equal. Is it guaranteed that on equal size it will not reallocate the array and invalidate the iterators?



I wanted to avoid one branch and handle only 2 cases (>= or <) instead of 3 (< or > or ==), but if resizing to same size is undefined, then i will have to check that case too.






c++ vector containers dynamic-memory-allocation







share|improve this question























  • Given the info in the part "Exception safety", you can safely assume there is no reallocation on resize with the size being equal the the current size of the vector.

    – Croolman
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:19











  • The std::vector<> class is a template class, so you have the source code on your computer. You could look for yourself. Or you could write a test program and debug that. Or look at the assembler code that is generated. Or make a vector of a class that prints information when the copy constructor and/or the move constructor is called, and then see what happens. Besides that, I'm pretty sure that this case is checked in the vector's implementation and nothing is done then.

    – Rene
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:25











  • Don't read cplusplus.com, it's known to be wrong on several occassions.

    – n.m.
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:28











  • @n.m. note that in this case also cppreference is not clear on iterator invalidation. It has a note that "Vector capacity is never reduced when resizing to smaller size because that would invalidate all iterators, ..." but its not clearly states what iterators are invalidated in general

    – user463035818
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:30








  • 2





    If "same-size resizing" had any effect at all, it would be time for the entire C++ committee and the language implementers to retire.

    – molbdnilo
    Nov 23 '18 at 14:18
















1












1








1








Reading the manual about vector::resize http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/vector/vector/resize/



It only says what happens if the size is greater or smaller, but does not say what happens if it's equal. Is it guaranteed that on equal size it will not reallocate the array and invalidate the iterators?



I wanted to avoid one branch and handle only 2 cases (>= or <) instead of 3 (< or > or ==), but if resizing to same size is undefined, then i will have to check that case too.






c++ vector containers dynamic-memory-allocation







share|improve this question














Reading the manual about vector::resize http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/vector/vector/resize/



It only says what happens if the size is greater or smaller, but does not say what happens if it's equal. Is it guaranteed that on equal size it will not reallocate the array and invalidate the iterators?



I wanted to avoid one branch and handle only 2 cases (>= or <) instead of 3 (< or > or ==), but if resizing to same size is undefined, then i will have to check that case too.






c++ vector containers dynamic-memory-allocation




c++ vector containers dynamic-memory-allocation






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked Nov 23 '18 at 13:12









Youda008Youda008

484515




484515













  • Given the info in the part "Exception safety", you can safely assume there is no reallocation on resize with the size being equal the the current size of the vector.

    – Croolman
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:19











  • The std::vector<> class is a template class, so you have the source code on your computer. You could look for yourself. Or you could write a test program and debug that. Or look at the assembler code that is generated. Or make a vector of a class that prints information when the copy constructor and/or the move constructor is called, and then see what happens. Besides that, I'm pretty sure that this case is checked in the vector's implementation and nothing is done then.

    – Rene
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:25











  • Don't read cplusplus.com, it's known to be wrong on several occassions.

    – n.m.
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:28











  • @n.m. note that in this case also cppreference is not clear on iterator invalidation. It has a note that "Vector capacity is never reduced when resizing to smaller size because that would invalidate all iterators, ..." but its not clearly states what iterators are invalidated in general

    – user463035818
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:30








  • 2





    If "same-size resizing" had any effect at all, it would be time for the entire C++ committee and the language implementers to retire.

    – molbdnilo
    Nov 23 '18 at 14:18





















  • Given the info in the part "Exception safety", you can safely assume there is no reallocation on resize with the size being equal the the current size of the vector.

    – Croolman
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:19











  • The std::vector<> class is a template class, so you have the source code on your computer. You could look for yourself. Or you could write a test program and debug that. Or look at the assembler code that is generated. Or make a vector of a class that prints information when the copy constructor and/or the move constructor is called, and then see what happens. Besides that, I'm pretty sure that this case is checked in the vector's implementation and nothing is done then.

    – Rene
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:25











  • Don't read cplusplus.com, it's known to be wrong on several occassions.

    – n.m.
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:28











  • @n.m. note that in this case also cppreference is not clear on iterator invalidation. It has a note that "Vector capacity is never reduced when resizing to smaller size because that would invalidate all iterators, ..." but its not clearly states what iterators are invalidated in general

    – user463035818
    Nov 23 '18 at 13:30








  • 2





    If "same-size resizing" had any effect at all, it would be time for the entire C++ committee and the language implementers to retire.

    – molbdnilo
    Nov 23 '18 at 14:18



















Given the info in the part "Exception safety", you can safely assume there is no reallocation on resize with the size being equal the the current size of the vector.

– Croolman
Nov 23 '18 at 13:19





Given the info in the part "Exception safety", you can safely assume there is no reallocation on resize with the size being equal the the current size of the vector.

– Croolman
Nov 23 '18 at 13:19













The std::vector<> class is a template class, so you have the source code on your computer. You could look for yourself. Or you could write a test program and debug that. Or look at the assembler code that is generated. Or make a vector of a class that prints information when the copy constructor and/or the move constructor is called, and then see what happens. Besides that, I'm pretty sure that this case is checked in the vector's implementation and nothing is done then.

– Rene
Nov 23 '18 at 13:25





The std::vector<> class is a template class, so you have the source code on your computer. You could look for yourself. Or you could write a test program and debug that. Or look at the assembler code that is generated. Or make a vector of a class that prints information when the copy constructor and/or the move constructor is called, and then see what happens. Besides that, I'm pretty sure that this case is checked in the vector's implementation and nothing is done then.

– Rene
Nov 23 '18 at 13:25













Don't read cplusplus.com, it's known to be wrong on several occassions.

– n.m.
Nov 23 '18 at 13:28





Don't read cplusplus.com, it's known to be wrong on several occassions.

– n.m.
Nov 23 '18 at 13:28













@n.m. note that in this case also cppreference is not clear on iterator invalidation. It has a note that "Vector capacity is never reduced when resizing to smaller size because that would invalidate all iterators, ..." but its not clearly states what iterators are invalidated in general

– user463035818
Nov 23 '18 at 13:30







@n.m. note that in this case also cppreference is not clear on iterator invalidation. It has a note that "Vector capacity is never reduced when resizing to smaller size because that would invalidate all iterators, ..." but its not clearly states what iterators are invalidated in general

– user463035818
Nov 23 '18 at 13:30






2




2





If "same-size resizing" had any effect at all, it would be time for the entire C++ committee and the language implementers to retire.

– molbdnilo
Nov 23 '18 at 14:18







If "same-size resizing" had any effect at all, it would be time for the entire C++ committee and the language implementers to retire.

– molbdnilo
Nov 23 '18 at 14:18














5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















3














This is probably just an error in the linked reference. The standard says following:




void resize(size_type sz);



Effects: If sz < size(), erases the last size() - sz elements from the sequence. Otherwise, appends sz - size() default-inserted elements to the sequence.




Since sz - size() is 0 in your case, it doesn't do anything.






share|improve this answer































    3














    From [vector]




    Effects: If sz < size(), erases the last size() - sz elements from the sequence. Otherwise, appends sz - size() default-inserted elements to the sequence.




    In the case that size() == sz it inserts 0 elements into the sequence, which is the same as doing nothing.






    share|improve this answer































      2














      Now, probably most implementations are sufficiently intelligent about the case where nothing needs to be done and will literally do nothing.



      But I am asking myself, you are intending to call resize, why are you holding iterators anyway? Basically, you should never hold iterators for any longer time, especially when containers may get resized. Just write your algorithms in ways that don't need to hold iterators over the resize point.



      I am guessing wildly here, but maybe you are not using the right container and more context about what you are trying to achieve may result in a more useful answer.






      share|improve this answer































        1














        It seems like you're asking if iterators will be invalidated when resize(size()) is called. The answer is no, iterators will not be invalidated. Probably very little will happen at all, but certainly not iterator invalidation, because that only happens when the storage has to be reallocated, which would never happen if the resize is a no-op.






        share|improve this answer































          -1














          std::vector<> implementation:



          void resize(size_type __new_size)
          
{
          
    if (__new_size > size())
          
        _M_default_append(__new_size - size());
          
    else if (__new_size < size())
          
        _M_erase_at_end(this->_M_impl._M_start + __new_size);
          
}


          So, as expected: It does nothing.



          Edit:

          Taken from my RHEL server, g++ and C++ library package version 5.3.






          share|improve this answer


























          • thats one possible implementation (you should give a reference where you took it from btw), but you cannot conclude that every implementation has to behave like that only because this one does

            – user463035818
            Nov 23 '18 at 13:28











          • Unfortunately, my code will be compiling for several different architectures with different compilers, i cannot rely on what i can find in headers on my current computer.

            – Youda008
            Nov 23 '18 at 15:46











          Your Answer






          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
          StackExchange.snippets.init();
          });
          });
          }, "code-snippets");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "1"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53447386%2fwhat-if-size-argument-for-stdvectorresize-is-equal-to-the-current-size%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes








          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3














          This is probably just an error in the linked reference. The standard says following:




          void resize(size_type sz);



          Effects: If sz < size(), erases the last size() - sz elements from the sequence. Otherwise, appends sz - size() default-inserted elements to the sequence.




          Since sz - size() is 0 in your case, it doesn't do anything.






          share|improve this answer




























            3














            This is probably just an error in the linked reference. The standard says following:




            void resize(size_type sz);



            Effects: If sz < size(), erases the last size() - sz elements from the sequence. Otherwise, appends sz - size() default-inserted elements to the sequence.




            Since sz - size() is 0 in your case, it doesn't do anything.






            share|improve this answer


























              3












              3








              3







              This is probably just an error in the linked reference. The standard says following:




              void resize(size_type sz);



              Effects: If sz < size(), erases the last size() - sz elements from the sequence. Otherwise, appends sz - size() default-inserted elements to the sequence.




              Since sz - size() is 0 in your case, it doesn't do anything.






              share|improve this answer













              This is probably just an error in the linked reference. The standard says following:




              void resize(size_type sz);



              Effects: If sz < size(), erases the last size() - sz elements from the sequence. Otherwise, appends sz - size() default-inserted elements to the sequence.




              Since sz - size() is 0 in your case, it doesn't do anything.







              share|improve this answer












              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer










              answered Nov 23 '18 at 13:28









              ZeregesZereges

              3,79111538




              3,79111538

























                  3














                  From [vector]




                  Effects: If sz < size(), erases the last size() - sz elements from the sequence. Otherwise, appends sz - size() default-inserted elements to the sequence.




                  In the case that size() == sz it inserts 0 elements into the sequence, which is the same as doing nothing.






                  share|improve this answer




























                    3














                    From [vector]




                    Effects: If sz < size(), erases the last size() - sz elements from the sequence. Otherwise, appends sz - size() default-inserted elements to the sequence.




                    In the case that size() == sz it inserts 0 elements into the sequence, which is the same as doing nothing.






                    share|improve this answer


























                      3












                      3








                      3







                      From [vector]




                      Effects: If sz < size(), erases the last size() - sz elements from the sequence. Otherwise, appends sz - size() default-inserted elements to the sequence.




                      In the case that size() == sz it inserts 0 elements into the sequence, which is the same as doing nothing.






                      share|improve this answer













                      From [vector]




                      Effects: If sz < size(), erases the last size() - sz elements from the sequence. Otherwise, appends sz - size() default-inserted elements to the sequence.




                      In the case that size() == sz it inserts 0 elements into the sequence, which is the same as doing nothing.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Nov 23 '18 at 13:30









                      CalethCaleth

                      17.3k22139




                      17.3k22139























                          2














                          Now, probably most implementations are sufficiently intelligent about the case where nothing needs to be done and will literally do nothing.



                          But I am asking myself, you are intending to call resize, why are you holding iterators anyway? Basically, you should never hold iterators for any longer time, especially when containers may get resized. Just write your algorithms in ways that don't need to hold iterators over the resize point.



                          I am guessing wildly here, but maybe you are not using the right container and more context about what you are trying to achieve may result in a more useful answer.






                          share|improve this answer




























                            2














                            Now, probably most implementations are sufficiently intelligent about the case where nothing needs to be done and will literally do nothing.



                            But I am asking myself, you are intending to call resize, why are you holding iterators anyway? Basically, you should never hold iterators for any longer time, especially when containers may get resized. Just write your algorithms in ways that don't need to hold iterators over the resize point.



                            I am guessing wildly here, but maybe you are not using the right container and more context about what you are trying to achieve may result in a more useful answer.






                            share|improve this answer


























                              2












                              2








                              2







                              Now, probably most implementations are sufficiently intelligent about the case where nothing needs to be done and will literally do nothing.



                              But I am asking myself, you are intending to call resize, why are you holding iterators anyway? Basically, you should never hold iterators for any longer time, especially when containers may get resized. Just write your algorithms in ways that don't need to hold iterators over the resize point.



                              I am guessing wildly here, but maybe you are not using the right container and more context about what you are trying to achieve may result in a more useful answer.






                              share|improve this answer













                              Now, probably most implementations are sufficiently intelligent about the case where nothing needs to be done and will literally do nothing.



                              But I am asking myself, you are intending to call resize, why are you holding iterators anyway? Basically, you should never hold iterators for any longer time, especially when containers may get resized. Just write your algorithms in ways that don't need to hold iterators over the resize point.



                              I am guessing wildly here, but maybe you are not using the right container and more context about what you are trying to achieve may result in a more useful answer.







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered Nov 23 '18 at 13:25









                              riokirioki

                              4,07442347




                              4,07442347























                                  1














                                  It seems like you're asking if iterators will be invalidated when resize(size()) is called. The answer is no, iterators will not be invalidated. Probably very little will happen at all, but certainly not iterator invalidation, because that only happens when the storage has to be reallocated, which would never happen if the resize is a no-op.






                                  share|improve this answer




























                                    1














                                    It seems like you're asking if iterators will be invalidated when resize(size()) is called. The answer is no, iterators will not be invalidated. Probably very little will happen at all, but certainly not iterator invalidation, because that only happens when the storage has to be reallocated, which would never happen if the resize is a no-op.






                                    share|improve this answer


























                                      1












                                      1








                                      1







                                      It seems like you're asking if iterators will be invalidated when resize(size()) is called. The answer is no, iterators will not be invalidated. Probably very little will happen at all, but certainly not iterator invalidation, because that only happens when the storage has to be reallocated, which would never happen if the resize is a no-op.






                                      share|improve this answer













                                      It seems like you're asking if iterators will be invalidated when resize(size()) is called. The answer is no, iterators will not be invalidated. Probably very little will happen at all, but certainly not iterator invalidation, because that only happens when the storage has to be reallocated, which would never happen if the resize is a no-op.







                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered Nov 23 '18 at 13:19









                                      John ZwinckJohn Zwinck

                                      152k16176293




                                      152k16176293























                                          -1














                                          std::vector<> implementation:



                                          void resize(size_type __new_size)
                                          
{
                                          
    if (__new_size > size())
                                          
        _M_default_append(__new_size - size());
                                          
    else if (__new_size < size())
                                          
        _M_erase_at_end(this->_M_impl._M_start + __new_size);
                                          
}


                                          So, as expected: It does nothing.



                                          Edit:

                                          Taken from my RHEL server, g++ and C++ library package version 5.3.






                                          share|improve this answer


























                                          • thats one possible implementation (you should give a reference where you took it from btw), but you cannot conclude that every implementation has to behave like that only because this one does

                                            – user463035818
                                            Nov 23 '18 at 13:28











                                          • Unfortunately, my code will be compiling for several different architectures with different compilers, i cannot rely on what i can find in headers on my current computer.

                                            – Youda008
                                            Nov 23 '18 at 15:46
















                                          -1














                                          std::vector<> implementation:



                                          void resize(size_type __new_size)
                                          
{
                                          
    if (__new_size > size())
                                          
        _M_default_append(__new_size - size());
                                          
    else if (__new_size < size())
                                          
        _M_erase_at_end(this->_M_impl._M_start + __new_size);
                                          
}


                                          So, as expected: It does nothing.



                                          Edit:

                                          Taken from my RHEL server, g++ and C++ library package version 5.3.






                                          share|improve this answer


























                                          • thats one possible implementation (you should give a reference where you took it from btw), but you cannot conclude that every implementation has to behave like that only because this one does

                                            – user463035818
                                            Nov 23 '18 at 13:28











                                          • Unfortunately, my code will be compiling for several different architectures with different compilers, i cannot rely on what i can find in headers on my current computer.

                                            – Youda008
                                            Nov 23 '18 at 15:46














                                          -1












                                          -1








                                          -1







                                          std::vector<> implementation:



                                          void resize(size_type __new_size)
                                          
{
                                          
    if (__new_size > size())
                                          
        _M_default_append(__new_size - size());
                                          
    else if (__new_size < size())
                                          
        _M_erase_at_end(this->_M_impl._M_start + __new_size);
                                          
}


                                          So, as expected: It does nothing.



                                          Edit:

                                          Taken from my RHEL server, g++ and C++ library package version 5.3.






                                          share|improve this answer















                                          std::vector<> implementation:



                                          void resize(size_type __new_size)
                                          
{
                                          
    if (__new_size > size())
                                          
        _M_default_append(__new_size - size());
                                          
    else if (__new_size < size())
                                          
        _M_erase_at_end(this->_M_impl._M_start + __new_size);
                                          
}


                                          So, as expected: It does nothing.



                                          Edit:

                                          Taken from my RHEL server, g++ and C++ library package version 5.3.







                                          share|improve this answer














                                          share|improve this answer



                                          share|improve this answer








                                          edited Nov 23 '18 at 13:35

























                                          answered Nov 23 '18 at 13:27









                                          ReneRene

                                          1,8611616




                                          1,8611616













                                          • thats one possible implementation (you should give a reference where you took it from btw), but you cannot conclude that every implementation has to behave like that only because this one does

                                            – user463035818
                                            Nov 23 '18 at 13:28











                                          • Unfortunately, my code will be compiling for several different architectures with different compilers, i cannot rely on what i can find in headers on my current computer.

                                            – Youda008
                                            Nov 23 '18 at 15:46



















                                          • thats one possible implementation (you should give a reference where you took it from btw), but you cannot conclude that every implementation has to behave like that only because this one does

                                            – user463035818
                                            Nov 23 '18 at 13:28











                                          • Unfortunately, my code will be compiling for several different architectures with different compilers, i cannot rely on what i can find in headers on my current computer.

                                            – Youda008
                                            Nov 23 '18 at 15:46

















                                          thats one possible implementation (you should give a reference where you took it from btw), but you cannot conclude that every implementation has to behave like that only because this one does

                                          – user463035818
                                          Nov 23 '18 at 13:28





                                          thats one possible implementation (you should give a reference where you took it from btw), but you cannot conclude that every implementation has to behave like that only because this one does

                                          – user463035818
                                          Nov 23 '18 at 13:28













                                          Unfortunately, my code will be compiling for several different architectures with different compilers, i cannot rely on what i can find in headers on my current computer.

                                          – Youda008
                                          Nov 23 '18 at 15:46





                                          Unfortunately, my code will be compiling for several different architectures with different compilers, i cannot rely on what i can find in headers on my current computer.

                                          – Youda008
                                          Nov 23 '18 at 15:46


















                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded




















































                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid …



                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function () {
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53447386%2fwhat-if-size-argument-for-stdvectorresize-is-equal-to-the-current-size%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                          }
                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          -

                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Costa Masnaga

                                          Image
                                          .mw-parser-output .avviso .mbox-text-div>div,.mw-parser-output .avviso .mbox-text-full-div>div{font-size:90%}.mw-parser-output .avviso .mbox-image div{width:52px}.mw-parser-output .avviso .mbox-text-full-div .hide-when-compact{display:block} Questa voce o sezione sull'argomento Lombardia non cita le fonti necessarie o quelle presenti sono insufficienti . Puoi migliorare questa voce aggiungendo citazioni da fonti attendibili secondo le linee guida sull'uso delle fonti. Segui i suggerimenti del progetto di riferimento. Costa Masnaga comune Localizzazione Stato   Italia Regione Lombardia Provincia Lecco Amministrazione Sindaco Sabina Panzeri (Al centro il cittadino) dall'08/06/2009 Territorio Coordinate 45°46′N 9°17′E  /  45.766667°N 9.283333°E 45.766667; 9.283333  ( Costa Masnaga ) Coordinate: 45°46′N 9°17′E  /  45.766667°N 9.283333°E 45.766667; 9.283333  ( Costa Masnaga ) Altitudine 318 m s.l.m...
                                          Read more

                                          Fotorealismo

                                          Image
                                          Guerrino Boatto, Venice's St. Barnaba Church and canal Il fotorealismo è un genere di pittura basato sull'uso di una o più fotografie dalle quali l'artista prende le informazioni necessarie da utilizzare poi nel processo della creazione dell'opera, in genere ad olio o ad acrilico, al fine di avere un aspetto finale il più simile possibile alla fotografia. Indice 1 Storia 2 Lista dei fotorealisti 3 Note 4 Voci correlate 5 Altri progetti Storia | Il fotorealismo è un movimento che nasce negli Stati Uniti d'America alla fine degli anni sessanta [1] sulla scia della Pop Art [2] [3] [4] , e insieme condividono il carattere reazionario verso la travolgente ascesa dei media, che alla metà del ventesimo secolo si trasforma in un fenomeno di massa talmente imponente da minacciare il valore dell'immagine nell'arte. [5] [6] Ne consegue così che, colto il gesto d'inizio che fu della Pop Art, i fotorealisti aprono ad un ...
                                          Read more

                                          Sidney Franklin

                                          Image
                                          Questa voce sull'argomento registi statunitensi è solo un abbozzo . Contribuisci a migliorarla secondo le convenzioni di Wikipedia. Sidney Franklin, foto di Carl Van Vechten Oscar alla memoria Irving G. Thalberg 1943 Sidney Franklin , all'anagrafe Sidney Arnold Franklin , (San Francisco, 21 marzo 1893 – Santa Monica, 18 maggio 1972), è stato un regista, produttore cinematografico e attore statunitense. Il 20 giugno 1963, si sposò con l'attrice australiana Enid Bennett. Il matrimonio durò fino alla morte dell'attrice, il 14 maggio 1969 [1] Indice 1 Filmografia 1.1 Regista 1.2 Aiuto regia (parziale) 1.3 Produttore 1.4 Attore (parziale) 2 Note 3 Altri progetti 4 Collegamenti esterni Filmografia | Regista | The Baby , co-regia Chester M. Franklin (1915) The Rivals , co-regia Chester M. Franklin (1915) Little Dick's First Case , co-regia Chester M. Franklin (1915) Her Filmland Hero , co-...
                                          Read more