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
>| 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:
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
>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.
>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