From: Daniel Walker (daniel.j.walker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-14 14:18:19
On 4/11/06, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >> cannot have overloads (in C++98) taking containers/ranges:
> >> fn( Iterator first, Iterator last )
> >> fn( Iterator first, Iterator last, Functor f )
> >> fn( Range rng )
> >> fn( Range rng, Functor f )
> >> as the last overload is ambiguous. Concepts will allow this to be resolved
> >> as a Functor will not match the Iterator requirements :).
> > you can use enable_if on the latter and disable it the two types are the
> > same.
> Not if you happen to have a type that is both a valid range and a
> valid function object.
> Yes, that's a corner case, but it's the corner of a large floating
> block of ice.
For this idiom, I use boost::iterator_range like so,
fn( Iterator first, Iterator last )
fn( Iterator first, Iterator last, Functor f )
fn( boost::iterator_range<Iterator> rng )
fn( boost::iterator_range<Iterator> rng, Functor f )
This is basicly the same thing as section 18.3.1 of Stroustrup's The
C++ Programing Language. When calling fn() from templates with
parameterized range types, I do something like ...
void some_other_function(const ForwardRange& x)
using namespace boost;
The call to make_iterator_range() is a hassle. And this is just a
work-around for the specific iterator/functor/range overload
resolution problem. I think in-language support for concepts could
deffinitely clean up this code and make life easier.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk