Re: [boost] Re: iterator ranges; eliminating private member functions

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-02 17:30:06

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Colvin" <gcolvin_at_[hidden]>

> I hate wading into a religious war, so I'll just say I take a dim view of
> almost all general arguments about the "correct" way to use C++ language
> features in a design...

Me, too. That's why I asked the posters in question to take the discussion
off-list. I'm only mentioning this because I wouldn't want the beginning of
Greg's post to encourage a return to discussion of the less-substantive
details. Please do discuss iterator ranges some more, though!

In that spirit, I think talking about iterator ranges misses a significant
opportunity for generalization. My half_open_range works with integer types
as well as iterators. I'm not sure there's anything special about iterator
ranges as opposed to ranges of other things.

-Dave