Hi!

I have downloaded Range.Ex uploaded at 26.04.2009 09:09. It seems the difficulties are still there.

The exact program you posted compiles without errors or warnings on Visual C++ 9. I installed Boost 1.39 and then copied over the RangeEx files.

[...]

009/7/3 Neil Groves <neil@grovescomputing.com>

Hello!

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:38 AM, 塑府学 <shaochiliang@gmail.com> wrote:

I use vc 9.0 to compile the following code with boost 1.39.0 and range_ex.

   #include<string>
   #include<boost/algorithm/string.hpp>
   #include<boost/range/algorithm.hpp>

   int main() {
   std::string s = "hello";
   boost::find_first(s, "lo");
   return 0;
   }

The compiler will complain ambiguous call to overload function "find". I found there's also a "find" in boost/range/algorithm.hpp. Even worse when I change the type of "s" to const std::string, the compiler will resolute "find" call as the one in boost/range/algorithm.hpp

and reports an error "const_iterator is not a member of std::_String_const_iterator". Now I just indicated the "find" call in boost::find_first explicitly. Is there a better way to solve it?

This code compiles cleanly for me. I noticed that you are talking about "find" rather than "find_first" so I took the liberty of replacing the "find_first" with "find". This indeed produced a compiler error similar to the one you describe. However boost::find(s, "lo") does not match the boost/algorithm/string.hpp version because the second parameter should be a "Finder object used for searching". Please see:
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_39_0/doc/html/string_algo/reference.html#header.boost.algorithm.string.find_hpp

It also does not match the RangeEx version because "find" is used to find an element, as opposed to a sub-sequence, from a range. Therefore I conclude that either, I have guessed the code snippet that causes the problem inaccurately, or that the code that produced the compiler error was simply incorrect.

If I have guessed the code wrongly, would you please supply the exact code that reproduces the problem. I suspect that find_first is exactly the right solution. Please let me know either way.

[...]

Regards,
Neil Groves