From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-02 01:46:28
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message news:uoekp5v5w.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
| "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
| > I asked Jeremy if I could use it as a basis for my docs...so I did...but then most changed so only a few of Jeremy's original
| > are left. The results are in libs/range/doc/range.html IIRC.
| Is one redundant now? Should one concept refine the other (refactorization)?
Jeremy's collection concept had the same motivation as the range concept: to lower requirement on container types.
However, Jeremy's concept talk about member functions and still mentions a reference type that behaves like a normal reference, but
doesn't have to be it. In the range concepts that is all gone.
So my personal feeling is that collection.html is redundant now.