From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-08 07:51:27
Fredrik Blomqvist wrote:
> 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' for example).
> 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 possibility.
I'm not sure this is going to work:
class yours : public iterator_facade<T, ...>
yours(.....) : super_t(.......)
When compiler parses the above, name lookup does not use the scope of
iterator_facade, so no matter what's typedefed there, 'super_t' won't be