Boost logo

Boost :

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-09 18:30:12

"Robert Ramey" <ramey_at_[hidden]> wrote in message

| see it working for me here. - I don't remember the details. The extreme
| rigor and formality of the new boost itertator was both a curse and a
| blessing. Making the "dataflow" iterators seemingly harder to make. But
| all the compositions (some fairly deep) worked as expected with no
| debugging. I'm extremely interested in seeing this idea explored more in
| the future.
| "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| news:cmrgnj$6lu$
| > If you are going to convince me iterators are easy to use, you have to
| come up
| > with something better than

| > Seriously, this is so ugly and hard to write that I predict less than 1%
| of
| > the community will ever use it.
| LOL- I think just the opposite. I guess its in the eye of the beholder.
| The funnest part of this is that I specifically crafted the code to permit
| exactly this syntax. I'm amazed there there exists even one person that has
| a negative reaction to it. Its immensly intriguing to me that we can have
| exact opposite reactions to this. I'll be curious to hear what others
| think.

Here's my general take on it: iterators are important and useful as the
infrastructure. iterators are, however, not too user-friendly; the
user-friendly interface
can be build on top so easy task becomes , well, easy. and that is the purpose
of ranges and johns range library.
without a good iterator library underneith ranges where hard to craft, but now
that we have a good iterator library, we should persue
higher abstractions


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at