From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-26 04:45:28
David Abrahams wrote:
> Daniel Frey <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>Incidentally, it's almost always possible to detect whether the first
>>>argument supports operator += or operator-=. That might be a good way
>>>to decide whether to advance/regress it.
>>If is_iterator yields false
> There is no is_iterator trait AFAIK. And I wasn't suggesting that.
> I was suggesting something more like is_+=able and is_-=able traits.
>>this is good to distinguish the rest,
Sorry, during shortening my previous mail before posting, one sentence
got lost :) I was suggesting to add is_iterator, because if it yields
true we should IMHO use std::advance. Only if it yields false, we should
use your suggestion to distinguish +=able types from ++able types to use
an efficient O(1)-implementation when possible, an O(n)-implementation
>>yes. But the first question is, whether we want to enhance the 2-arg
>>version of next/prior or if we simply rename them to
>>e.g. advanced/regressed. I'd be happy with the latter. Comments?
> I find those names rather awful for functions; no offense intended.
No problem, the names are not important. The important part is, whether
we want to make the 2-arg version iterator-only.
-- 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