Re: [boost] Re: input_iterator_facade (was: Re: [iterator facade] Why isdereference const?)

From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-07 02:52:25

Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
> > I guess we're back to your old disagreements about
> > flexibility. Flexibility is
> > fine, but it adds complexity, both for implementors and the user, so
> > flexibility should be added only when absolutely necessary.
> > The eof_iterator
> > is intented to be as simple as possible.
> >
> > - Volodya
>
> Actually after some consideration I incline to agree with you on most
> points. Look in cvs on how my version looks now.

I like this version! Further, it has a couple of advantages over mine:

 - the bool return from the 'get' method is a bit more inuitive
 - the 'input_iterator_core_access' is nicer than requiring public
   access to get.

- Volodya