From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-23 08:48:51
>>From: Daniel Frey [mailto:daniel.frey_at_[hidden]]
>>Should we propose std::regress (the counter-part for
>>standardization (via a DR)? The current definition of
>>to limit the number of elements that can be skipped backwards
>>types, but the container can be larger (OK, in theory, never tried it
>>myself :). This would also nicely solve the implementation
>>issue for us.
> I don't think it's really a defect; there's a slight inconsistency with
> regards to the max/min values on most platforms, but nothing inherently
> wrong AFAICS. Note that the reverse_iterator trick can be used by client
> code too, so the "signed type limit" is easily defeated.
The reason to call it a DR is, that it can be handled faster and easier
than a real extension. :) I just don't know if this is acceptable. What
to the standard guys around here say? Worth a try?
-- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial solutions & technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk