Re: [boost] Re: token_iterator comments, suggestions

From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-07 09:05:15

I disagree.
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 
>news:uhdtpqogn.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
>
>| > 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
>return
>
>range< vector<T> >
>
>and not
>
>iterator_range< typename iterator_of< vector<T> >::type >
>
>br
>
>Thorsten
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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"