From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-01 19:20:44
Pavol Droba <droba_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 10:03:36AM -1000, David Abrahams wrote:
>> Pavol Droba <droba_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I think it should be moved outside and documented as a separate
>> utility. It's valuable to be able to pass containers around. It
>> would be good if you'd look over the functionality of half_open_range
>> and see if there's anything worth stealing.
> Ok this seems reasonable. There is one more thing left open: the name.
> Is "iterator_range" ok, or should it be renamed to "range"?
> There is a set of support utilities, which has currently names like
> make_range, copy_range and etc.
> Either these functions are renamed to make_iterator_range (and etc.),
> or the class will have to be renamed to "range".
> My question to public is: What is prefered solution?
It should only be called "range" if it's meant to work on ranges of
non-iterators. But then, you should call it half_open_range ;-)
-- 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