From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-05 23:50:48
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message news:ur7stqvrd.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> | "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
> | > My current view is that Boost.Range should contain both itarator_range<> and range<>,
> | > but that range-based algorithms should use range<>
> | If I understand you correctly, it sounds a bit rigid. Would you not
> | provide a range-based lower_bound as a matter of principle, or what?
> I'm not sure I understand. Could you give an example?
It sounds like you're saying that algorithms that traffic in ranges
shouldn't also deal in iterators (I could be mistaken), but it seems
to me that for some algorithms (e.g. lower_bound), operating on a
range and returning an iterator is just right.
> (remark: range<> would be less flexible than iterator_range<> since
> its template parameter is an ExternalRange, but it would provide a
> higher abstraction level. )
This part's beyond me.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://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