Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: rtl (Range Template Library)

From: John Torjo (john.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-20 19:11:24

>>The idea I am pushing for here is that ranges ARE NOT pairs of iterators.
>>Rather, a pair of iterators happens to make a good representation of a
>>range, but may not be the only one.
> 
> 
> Yes, I heartily agree.
> 
> (As I said in a previous post) I think the fundamentals of a range support
> should facilitate the following:
> 
> some_range_type    r(. . .);
> 
> for(; r; ++r)
> {
>   *r; // Do something with the current position
> }
> 
> This is very general, and therefore very powerful.
> 

You're starting to win me over ;)

However, as said in my other posts, I just see a more "pure" range coming out.

We'll distinguish between traveral_range, and crange/irange classes as they are 
now. So, I think crange/irange are fine as are, but we need a more "pure" class, 
which will be traversal_range.

Best,
John