Boost logo

Boost :

From: jsiek_at_[hidden]
Date: 2000-06-11 13:14:30

Hi Dave,

David Abrahams writes:
> Because there was no apparent interest in the indirect_iterators I uploaded
> last week, I have used the wrapped_iterator template to create a motivating

Ahh, but a lack of immediate reaction does not necessarily mean a lack
of interest! I'm interested :) Just been busy... I use this
wrapped_iterator idea a lot, though my version is broken when it comes
to const/non-const compatibility. Ok, so assuming we can work around
the friend function instantiation problem... I'm wondering if we can
make the implementation of reverse_iterator even smaller. Can we use
b&n to also get rid of the operator+=, etc.?

Oh, and on a separate note... there's an issue to be addressed with
std::iterator and the old g++ lib. I've noticed that in recent
revisions of boost/operators.hpp some #define's have been appearing
removing the iterator helpers that use std::iterator. How about
instead of removing the iterator helpers (which will break all of my
code that uses it) we provide std::iterator in boost. I know all the
reasons for not putting in std::iterator in boost, but again, its just
a workaround for a broken implementation. Another alternative is to
provide versions of the iterator helpers that do not used
std::iterator... it's trivial to make that change and I'd be more than
happy to do it. Either way, we can't get rid of the iterator helpers
under the old g++ lib, it will break my codes!



Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at