From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-09-27 11:48:15
Howard Hinnant <hinnant_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Sep 27, 2004, at 10:20 AM, David Abrahams wrote:
>> Howard Hinnant <hinnant_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> I also anticipate C++0X will contain some really slick
>>> indirect_iterator types that will transform
>>> container<sole_ptr<T>>::iterator appropriately. These will likely
>>> be heavily influenced by (if not based on) the Boost.Iterator
>> Not if nobody else fights for that library in the LWG.
>> pessimistic-ly y'rs,
> I wouldn't be so pessimistic. I don't believe a single member of the
> lwg expressed the opinion that we didn't want it in C++0X.
I never suggested that nobody wants it. I just don't think anyone
wants it badly enough to make sure it happens.
> It is clear we want something like the boost iterator library. It
> isn't clear /exactly/ what we want. It's a complicated area, that's
It is complicated technically, but that's not all ;-)
-- 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