From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-07 09:05:15
specifically I belive we should take the time to write the syntactic sugar
which allows ALL of the current algorithms to accept range<>s (that's the
plural of range<>, not some variable "s").
At Saturday 2004-06-05 22:12, you wrote:
>"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>| > 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.
>yeah, I'm saying that algorithms that traffic in ranges (eg vector<T>) and
>return iterator pairs should
>range< vector<T> >
>iterator_range< typename iterator_of< vector<T> >::type >
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk