From: Fredrik Blomqvist (fredrik_blomqvist_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-05 05:23:38
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>> Perhaps also boost::compressed_pair?
> what use would it be if one iterator was missing?
My thought was that it could perhaps show up as an "artifact"
of generic code(?). Don't know if it's worth it though, just an idea.
>> Shouldn't the docs and examples recommend using unqualified calls to
>> begin()/end() to support ADL?
> they should at least discuss the trade-off involved. And I guess
> unqualified calls should be preferred as in
> void foo( C& c )
> using namespace boost;
> bar( begin( c ), end( c ),... );
---- Another thing I just noticed in the code is the use of <boost/detail/iterator_traits.hpp>. I think would be better to rely on the official <boost/iterator/iterator_traits.hpp> instead. Altough the latter _currently_ simply forwards to the former I would expect anything in a 'detail' namespace to be more volatile. Regards // Fredrik Blomqvist
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk