|
Boost : |
From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-27 08:17:25
David Abrahams wrote:
>>OK, the notation is not optimal ;-). The idea is just that ultimatly the
>>user would only need to create a past-the-end permutation iterator with
>>one argument, the past-the-end of the order. This is simpler for the
>>user and less confusing, since otherwise the user needs to construct the
>>past-the-end from two iterator of which one is actually not used (and
>>thus what value should it have ideally ?)
>>
>
> OK. Downside: all end-of-sequence iterators using the same permutation but a
> different element set look identical, thwarting bug detection somewhat.
That's true. Also, the constructor of iterator_adaptors would need to be
specialised for the case where the policies class is a
permutation_iterator_policies to make sure the first arguments goes into
the policies and the second argument is used as the base. This also gets
ugly.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk