From: Pavol Droba (droba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-03 03:18:20
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 03:49:14PM +1100, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> I don't agree. The current interface seems compatible with any type of
> ordered type:
> template< typename T >
> class range
> T begin() const;
> T end() const;
> T size() const;
> bool empty() const;
> AFAICT, only size() needs to be specialized for integers which should be
> easy using typetraits. So the same range class can easily support
> both iterators and integers.
> Moreover, the standard uses half-open ranges of the type
Actualy, it is not fully correct. 'iterator_range' is realy intended to work with
iterators only. Along with the operations you have specified, it has
a set of typedefs and operations are implemented using iterator operations.
I don't see a good reason why would we need to have a 'generic' all encompassing
range. 'iterator_range' is good for iterators and nothing else. Therefore
it is better to keep the name to reflect this point.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk