From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-02 05:44:24
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> | "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
> words 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
> which 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.
It's not redundant until you make all the code that relies on it work
with models of the more-general Range. Sounds like Collection is a
refinement of Range.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk