From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-11-29 06:50:23
> Sorry, I'll try to reword that, though realize that in the final
> analysis I agreed with your suggestion.
> The original version of the random_access_helper did not define
> the random_access_iterator_tag. Using that version, someone could
> reasonably have an iterator that is not a RandomAccessIterator
> (because it is missing operator-) but still use the helper.
> Now the reason we added the random_access_iterator_tag was
> merely for convenience, but once we make that addition, as
> you've pointed out, we really should require the operator-.
> So the issue then is, do we want to make the helper usable
> by almost-random-access-iterators, or do we want to provide
> the convenience of the tag definition. I would go with the
> convenience of the tag definition, even though it narrows
> (very slightly) the number of situations that the helper
> can be used.
Thanks, that's perfectly clear now.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk