From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-11 16:32:58
Sylvain Pion <Sylvain.Pion_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I'm guessing "..." is something like, "if default-constructed standard
>> container iterators were non-singular and guaranteed to be unequal to
>> any iterator obtained by other means".
> That would be something more like "if default-constructed standard container
> iterators were non-singular and guaranteed to be unequal to any iterator
> obtained by other means, and compare equal to any default-constructed
That sounds roughly correct.
> I.e. the default constructed value must be unique (as far as operator== is
>> At the same time, I doubt it belongs in our proposal: we don't say
>> anything about containers (except vector<bool>, and then only in the
>> rationale). You should write a proposal for extension and submit it
>> to the commitee if you care about this. It should be easy, compared
>> to the iterator adaptors/categories proposal.
> OK. I'll think about writing something.
I suggest that you think about proposing modifications to the
container requirements table (table 65 in 23.1), rather than trying to
use the wording above. It's just a hunch, but I think that would be
the cleanest way to do it.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk