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

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-23 13:50:49

At 08:48 AM 2/23/2004, Daniel Frey wrote:

 >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?

No, it isn't a DR.

OTOH, the LWG is now accepting issues for C++0x which propose extensions 
and changes which aren't DR's.

There isn't any formal definition of what is small enough to be treated as 
an issue rather than requiring a full-fledged formal proposal paper. If it 
can be expressed clearly in a page or less, including the proposed wording 
change to the standard, then I'd be willing to submit it as an issue. 
Without explicit standardese proposed wording, the chance of acceptance is 
much reduced. The committee has no staff sitting around waiting to write 
standardese for bright ideas.

--Beman