Cycle Iterator Adapter (was: Re: Help with iterator helpers)

From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-01 11:36:18

--- In boost_at_y..., nbecker_at_f... wrote:
> >>>>> "rogeeff" == rogeeff  <rogeeff_at_m...> writes:
> 
> I haven't checked the code carefully, but my concern is that the '%'
> operator when used with negative args returns either positive or
> negative values, machine dependent.  Usually this requires an 
explicit
> test or the code won't be correct in both cases.  There was no such
> test in this code, so I was suspicious.

I did not know that. But anyway it will work in any case. The only 
requirement is that after % |n|<m_cycle_size. But, as Tomass Witt 
remarked I should check m_cycle_size != 0.

> 
>     rogeeff> To Neal Backer:
>     rogeeff> I do not see what do we buy making Policy methods 
static. Dave could 

> I believe the code is more clear.  Since the adaptor object is 
passed
> as an argument to the unary functions, I find it confusing if the
> argument is not used.  In the case of binary functions, the lack of
> symmetry is also confusing.  I was under the impression, perhaps
> wrongly, that the policies were really intended to be static, but 
were
> not made static only to satisfy some broken compiler.

I prefer to treat it this way: stateless policies implemented using 
static function. Statefull policies implemented member functions. 
Other that that, as Dave sad, it is religious issue.

Gennadiy.