From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-23 20:02:43
Daniel Frey <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>> David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> | Hey! These implementations using "advance" don't work for
>> | non-iterators (e.g. int) the way regular next() and prior() do. I
>> | consider this a bug!
>> You're right.
> I don't see any need to extend the legal use of next/prior to anything
> else than iterators.
It was already legal for non-iterators. What made you think
> I considered the fact that it works/worked for
> non-iterators an accident
It's not. I wrote it; I meant the spec to say what it says and not
impose an iterator requirement.
> as the documentation only speaks about iterators and never bothers
> to mention non-iterators. Thus, the bug is IMHO that it's not
> explicitly documented that next/prior's first argument must meet the
> interator requirements.
Sorry, dude, I get final say on original intent, since it was mine.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk