From: John Torjo (john.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-05 11:34:07
David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Pavol Droba <droba_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > Question is there what should be the future of the iterator_range?
> > Posibilities: - use it only internaly by string_algo library (and
> > possibly rename it
> > to find_result)
> > - move it outside as a separate utility - replace it with something
> > else.
> > Current possibilities are half_open_range and std::pair.
> > There are oher issues that has been risen during this review. I will
> > address them later, when the library will be ready for inclusion.
> 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.
Matthew Wilson and me are working on a range library, which I think will be quite useful.
It'll allow the concept of range: a pair of iterators + it'll allow for easy manipulating of ranges in client code
+ automatic conversion of containers to ranges.
We'll post a version 0.01 in a few days.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk