[boost] Re: [boost.range] late addition, votes needed

From: Jeff Flinn (TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-15 11:28:41

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:uk6uvle5e.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > In the pre-redmond mailing Walter Brown discusses the possibility of
adding
> > these members to standard container classes:
> >
> > const_iterator cbegin();
> > const_iterator cend();
> > const_reverse_iterator crbegin();
> > const_reverse_iterator crbegin();
> >
> > The motiviation is that we want to be able to say explicitly "give me a
const
> > iterator" without doing ugly casts.
> > IMO a sound idea.
> >
> > Given the framework in boost.range these would be absolutely *trivial*
to add.
> >
> > 1st vote: for or against adding these?
> >
> > 2nd vote: which naming scheme to use:
> >
> >  a: cbegin(), cr_begin()
> >
> >  b: const_begin(); const_rbegin();
> >
> > The motivation for chosing the latter could be that "cr" contracttions
become
> > harder to read.
> >
> > Let me know what ya think.
>
> I wonder whether it's better to say
>
>   cbegin(x)
>
> or
>
>   begin(as_const(x))
>
> The latter is certainly more general.

Does this imply that the following would be possible:

    begin( as_reverse(x) )
    begin( as_const( as_reverse(x) ) )
    begin( as_reverse( as_const(x) ) )

Jeff F