From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-11 17:08:47
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| "Richard Peters" <r.a.peters_at_[hidden]> writes:
| > David Abrahams writes:
| >> Like Robert I am uncomfortable with a
| >> range concept that has iteration capabilities.
| >> For one thing, standard containers don't
| >> satisfy that concept, and it seems to me
| >> that a container ought to be a range without
| >> any special adaptation. Furthermore
| >> I have doubts about how well this "range/iterator"
| >> concept maps onto bidirectional
| >> and random access. That said...
| > I think it will be very difficult to have the standard containers
| > satisfy a range concept.
| It's difficult to have standard containers satisfy *your* range
| concept. That's exactly my point.
yes, there is two different concepts lurking here.
I think it is feasible to have
1. std containers being ranges as defined in boost.range
2. a new concepts that refine the concepts of boost.range by adding iteration
I believe (2) is exactly what John is doing.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk