From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-07 10:35:15
I made the change locally and it's passing all tests. I'm going to check it
in today unless you have objections.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeremy Siek" <jsiek_at_[hidden]>
To: "boost" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Proposed Iterator Adaptor change
> Yes, I ran into a problem caused by the over enthusiasm recently... though
> I'll need some time to think about this more carefully.
> On Sun, 6 Jan 2002, David Abrahams wrote:
> > Hi Jeremy and/or anyone else who cares,
> > I am thinking that the iterator adaptor library is overly enthusiastic
> > selecting the operator_arror_proxy for the result of its operator->()
> > whenever the iterator is no more refined than InputIterator. Shouldn't
> > also ask whether the associated reference type is not a reference before
> > resort to the proxy? That would be more efficient for lots of cases, and
> > would even enable operator->() when iterator_adaptor is used to iterate
> > an abstract class.
> > Have I missed something?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk