From: Erdei, András (ccg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-11 04:08:01
> The only question I have is whether by doing this "out of order" breaks
> other requirement of operator++(int); Otherwise I'm off to update my code.
As others have mentioned, it'll break code which
depends on the implicit conversion of your T; also
(i++).member will not work and & (i++) will not
produce what you expect -- there might be other
drawbacks, i don't know.
Boost seem to have objections against it, but
a solution can be a parametrized incrementable...
> BTW where did you dream this bit up?
It's not my idea; i've heard about this from
John Hickin when discussing proxies for thread-safety.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk