<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:08 AM, David Kimmel <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:davidwkimmel@gmail.com" target="_blank">davidwkimmel@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Whoa fast responses!<div><br></div><div>I like make_iterator_range and sliced but they don&#39;t quite seem to do it. �Good point on the std::distance. �No need to add a new make_iterator_range - I may consider rethinking my approach or just leaving as is. �Thanks everyone!<div>
<div class="h5"><br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>make_iterator_range is perfectly capable of meeting your expressed requirements. I have done this many times, I&#39;m not hypothesising. Please see my original post. You just use boost::next to advance one of the iterators that define the range.</div>
<div><br></div><div>See�<a href="http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_51_0/libs/utility/utility.htm">http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_51_0/libs/utility/utility.htm</a></div><div><br></div><div>While respecting Thorsten&#39;s opinion and the wish to provide convenience functions to our users,�I&#39;m not keen on introducing make_iterator_range (iterator, size_type) it seems like an unnecessary addition that would not significantly improve syntax. It would also duplicate the logic behind boost::next within non-member functions in Boost.Range like make_iterator_range. I prefer orthogonal solutions and composition to duplication of the advance logic.</div>
<div>�</div><div>Neil Groves</div></div>