Re: [boost] Re: Re: String Algo Review Results

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-04 03:51:18

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> > > But then, you should call it half_open_range ;-)
> >
> > Not necessarily :). Here's what we have:
> >
> >     template< typename Tag >
> >     struct range_traits
> >     {
> >         template< typename Range > static typename Range::value_type
> > size(Range const&);
> >         template< typename Range > static typename Range::value_type
> > front(Range const&);
> >         template< typename Range > static typename Range::value_type
> > back(Range const&);
> >     };
> >
> >     namespace tag {
> >     struct half_open;
> >     struct closed;
> >     }
> >
> >     template< typename T, typename Tag = tag::half_open >
> >     struct range
> >     {
> >         // use range_traits<Tag> to implement variability aspects of
open,
> >         // half-open and closed ranges
> >         // ...
> >     };
>
> It's not clear what's so good about this. Could you tell us?

I didn't claim it was good in any sense, but rather cited another prior art
on the topic that solves the dilemma of 'range' vs. 'half_open_range'
through use of tags and range traits encapsulating the corresponding
variability aspects.

Aleksey