Boost logo

Boost :

From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-05 10:57:37

On Tuesday 05 February 2002 16:37, you wrote:
> In increment:
> if( ++x.base() == m_bounds.second )
> x.base() = m_bounds.first;
> Since m_bounds.second is not included in the range, shouldn't that be:
> if( x.base()++ == m_bounds.second )
> x.base() = m_bounds.first;

I don't think so. AFAICS

if( x.base()++ == m_bounds.second )

would not prevent us fom incrementing the end iterator.

It is

if( ++x.base() == m_bounds.second )
            x.base() = m_bounds.first;

because m_bounds.second is not included in the range so we have to make
sure base does not point to m_bounds.second.

As I am writing this: If you question was should m_bounds.second be a valid
position for the cyclic iterator? I think no. To me providing a half open
range to the policies constructor is the right way to go. Otherwise we would
surely confuse users.


> Info: Send unsubscribe requests to:
> <mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Witt
Institut fuer Verkehrswesen, Eisenbahnbau und -betrieb, Universitaet Hannover
voice: +49(0) 511 762 - 4273, fax: +49(0) 511 762-3001

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at