Re: [boost] Re: iterator adaptors

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-21 17:25:57

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Collings" <gcollings_at_[hidden]>

> Referring to Dave's comments about long symbol names, I don't think
> that it hurts to allow the policy class direct access to the traits
> class; the two are closely linked anyway.  This would have the side
> effect of simplifying the implementation, obviating the need to pass
> in the reference type using member template argument deduction.  It
> may make it more usable too - the user just has one class to worry
> about.  On the down side, we would lose the clean separation that
> allows const_iterator and iterator to be cleanly defined with just
> one policy (three classes, though, so maybe it's not so bad...)

If you can propose an approach which actually shortens the names without
impairing use of the adaptors in generic programs I'd be really interested
to see it. All of /my/ my ideas end up making things worse, upon careful
examination.

-Dave