From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-14 17:52:18
--- In boost_at_[hidden], jsiek_at_l... wrote:
> David Abrahams writes:
> > Sheesh. No offense, but that sounds more complicated than it's
> > If someone needs extended categorization they can define an
> > extended_iterator_tag, no?
> If I understand what you mean, that's what I'm trying to
> accommodate... the "my_iterator_tag" was one of these extended
> categories, and I need too be able to figure out which of the
> categories is its base class, so I can pick the right adaptor class
> for it.
> I agree, things are getting a bit complicated :) I've got some ideas
> for how to simplify the code...
Sorry, I should have been clearer. I meant they could define a
typedef extended_iterator_category *in addition* to the standard
typedef iterator_category. I'm not sure the standard algorithms are
guaranteed to work if the iterator_category is something other than
one of the standard tags anyway.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk