Re: [boost] Re: Re: token_iterator comments, suggestions

From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-07 10:37:48

At Monday 2004-06-07 07:26, you wrote:
>"Victor A. Wagner Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
>news:6.1.0.6.2.20040607070211.0486b980_at_mail.rudbek.com...
>| I disagree.
>
>with what? It's hard to know when you top-post :-(
>
>| 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").
>
>I can't figure out what that has to do with the discussion :-) I too like 
>range version of
>std::copy() etc. To recap, I'm saying
>
>pair<iterator,iterator> foo( iterator, iterator );
>
>in its range version  should be
>
>range< Range > foo( Range& );

Range foo(Range const&);   // is perhaps this what you meant? or perhaps:
Range foo(Range);

I'm somewhat confused as I'd expected
typedef pair<iterator, iterator> Range;
to be the definition preceding your declaration of  foo(...);
I'm not sure what a  range<Range>  would be

>and not
>
>iterator_range< typename iterator_of<Range>::type > foo( Range& );
>
>Pavol disagrees, that makes the situation a 1 against 1 until other people
>start having an opinion.
>
>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"