[boost] Re: [utility] question on prior(x,n)

From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-23 08:48:51

Bjorn.Karlsson_at_[hidden] wrote:
>>From: Daniel Frey [mailto:daniel.frey_at_[hidden]]
> 
>>Should we propose std::regress (the counter-part for 
>>std::advance) for 
>>standardization (via a DR)? The current definition of 
>>std::advance seems 
>>to limit the number of elements that can be skipped backwards 
>>to signed 
>>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?

Regards, Daniel

-- 
Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial solutions & technology
Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany
fon: [phone], fax: [phone]
eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de