[boost] Re: Determining interest in combining_iterator

From: Anthony Williams (anthony.williamsNOSPAM_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-28 06:44:38

Thomas Becker <tmbecker1_at_[hidden]> writes:
> I see now that with your tuple iterator, you are
> aiming much higher than I previously thought. Just
> like boost's transform iterators, my combining
> iterators are always and necessarily input iterators.
> (That's not really going to change under the new
> proposed iterator categories, although they'll help
> me.) I can cheat a little by returning a value that
> happens to hold a bunch of references, such as a
> boost::tuple of references. Nothing prevents me from
> doing that. But you want a parallel-iterator that one
> can, for example, pass to std::sort and have it order
> the underlying sequences lexicographically. That's a
> tall order. My combining iterator does not cover that.
> Neither do I think that my combining iterator is
> affected much by the ultimate solution to your
> problem. My combining iterator is a multi-dimensional
> boost::transforming_iterator. Yours would end up being
> a multi-dimensional boost::projection_iterator. That's
> a different colored horse.

Yes, it's different, but it still has the same underlying parallel-iteration
problems to solve, so there might be some common ground. Which is what I've
been trying to say all along, though I didn't really state that in plain
text. It might be that the common ground is at a lower level than the iterator
dereferencing which has been focussing our attention, and it might be that
there is sufficiently little to make it not worth sharing, but I thought it
worth exploring.

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Williams
Senior Software Engineer, Beran Instruments Ltd.
Remove NOSPAM when replying, for timely response.