Re: [boost] reverse_iterator.hpp uploaded

From: jsiek_at_[hidden]
Date: 2000-06-11 22:41:00

David Abrahams writes:
 > You all know I have mixed feelings about entering this territory too deeply.
 > There is already a project (STLport) which does this job better and more
 > completely than we could ever hope to do it. Also, I think they're working

I agree that people *should* use STLport, but I also think it is
unreasonable to force people to use STLport. With that in mind the
boost libraries need to be self reliant.

 > on a new "official" lib for GCC which is a hybrid of the SGI STL and a
 > GNU-specific iostreams implementation. All that said, I have no real
 > objection to doing something like this. Whatever we need to do to get things
 > to work I guess.
 > 
 > > 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.
 > 
 > Compilers which don't support partial specialization will need to rely on
 > public derivation from std::iterator<> to get the iterator_category,
 > value_type, and difference_type of user-defined iterators through overloaded
 > functions, so we'd better not cut that derivation out entirely. If it's one

Of course, the compiler that doesn't have std::iterator does support
partial spec ;)

 > or the other, I favor fewer switches in the main-line boost code, meaning
 > "add the definition of std::iterator<>"

Ok, that sounds good.

Cheers,

Jeremy