From: Fredrik Blomqvist (fredrik_blomqvist_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-08 07:37:02
Wouldn't it be convenient if iterator_adaptor provided a protected "self
typedef" for use by client code? In particular I'm thinking of the
constructor case that basically always is feeding an iterator to the
iterator_adaptor baseclass, thus needing its explicit type.
(In most examples and tests this typedef is manually created as a 'super_t'
Having a predefined type would reduce the amount of boilerplate code and the
risk of getting out-of-sync with the declaration. I suggest a name something
like 'iterator_adaptor_t' instead of 'super_t' to lessen name-clash
I'm a bit confused why I haven't seen this discussed previously though. Hope
I'm not missing something (tm).. ;-)
// Fredrik Blomqvist
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk