From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-01 05:18:25
--- In boost_at_y..., "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_r...> wrote:
> In principle I would be, but I don't have time to check it over in
> right now. If you and Tom Becker would like to resolve your
> too am concerned about the non-portable rounding direction of
> numbers) and come up with a documentation page, I'd be happy to
I uploaded updated version (I cleaned a code a bit). Plus test
module, example and doc page (as you know, Dave, I am not that great
in docs but I was trying to follow as much as possible to existent
adaptors pages, so I hope it is not that bad). Location:
Could you please clarify, what non-portable rounding direction of
negative numbers did you mean?
To Neal Backer:
I do not see what do we buy making Policy methods static. Dave could
you clarify following question: since current design of
iterator_adaptor allows implemnetation if adaptor policies both as
member funtion and static function (since policy could be accessed
through this or Base.policy()), is there any valid reasons to prefere
one way over another?
Abould distance(): I do not see why do would you need distance to be
always positive. Could you clarify Neal?
About std::copy test: I was able to compile and pass your test with
curent version of adaptor. could you check that I got your intend
Further comments are greatly appritiated.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk