[boost] Re: Proxy indirect container adaptor: 4 claims

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-28 11:50:08

Christian Engström <christian.engstrom_at_[hidden]> writes:

>>> Christian Engström <christian.engstrom_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>
>>>The classic example is the expression  a == b, which becomes ambiguous
>>>[...]
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>> A classic example of a problem that can bve solved more elegantly by
>> the iterator adaptors library, *without* the problematic two-way
>> implicit conversion

On second thought; that particular "feature" is not provided by the
library, but could be provided using the techniques in the library.

>> -- and it *is* problematic, even if one direction
>> is derived-to-base.  You asked for feedback; I say look at the work
>> that those came before you already did in this area.  I don't know why
>> you won't, but I've stopped trying now.
>
>
> Excellent, if there is a more elegant way that can even handle raw
> pointer iterators, that could very well be how the proxy package
> should be implemented --- *if* it should be implemented.  But there's
> the rub, as I see it.
>
> I get the distinct feeling that we are talking a little bit at
> cross-purposes, which is making this discussion much more frustrating
> for both of us than it ought to be.  

Sorry to be blunt, but AFAICT, the problem is that you're not
listening.

> Before we've managed to give each other a heart attack :-), I'd like
> to try and see if I can explain what I mean.
>
> If I read you correctly, you are getting more and more annoyed at the
> idio^h^h^h^h 

You're not an idiot; you just ask for feedback and then don't follow
up on it.

> list member who persists in defending some crappy
> home-made indirect container implementation

I don't care about your crappy "container" (it isn't a container
either, since containers have iterators).  It's your crappy "iterator"
I have a problem with.  I would have thought that was abundantly clear
by now.

> For me, what's so frustrating is that although the discussion is both
> useful and interesting for me, and that I'm learning a lot, I feel
> that it is always drifting away from the aspect that I'm really the
> most interested in right now, which is to find an answer to the
> question:
>
> --Is there a way to define a package for indirect containers, so that
>   one can take a program that uses a direct container, and convert it
>   to using an indirect container just by changing the definition of
>   the container type?

I already told you that solving that problem was the very reason for
inventing indirect_iterator, so it darned well better be possible.  

I have no time to read the rest of your post, sorry.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com