From: Matthew Wilson (stlsoft_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-19 04:08:57
> Now that I think about it, a range concept does not even need to be so
> As explained above (in the original message):
> - a range is a pair of iterators
> - it has typedefs for value_type,pointer,reference
> (no const_pointer,no const_reference)
> - it's got begin() and end()
> - it's got an operator bool() that returns true if the
> range is non-empty.
I'm still of the opinion that all a range needs is ++(), bool() and *().
Having said that, begin() and end() are starting to look attractive, from a
practical pov. Hopefully others can shed light on where in the continuum
between our ideas they lie. (Perhaps they'll lie outside it! :)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk