[boost] Re: Re: Boost Iterable Range Library update (v1.5)

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-13 06:24:53

"Neal Becker" <ndbecker2_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:cn3o25$ml6$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
| Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
|
| > "Neal D. Becker" <ndbecker2_at_[hidden]> wrote in message

| > | In this case, I'd say it's a net loss.
| >
| > Sorry, could you elaborate on what the loss is? Using a new iterable range
| > concept we can say
| >
| > sub_range<const in_cont> r( in );
| > for( ; r; ++r ) { ... }
| >
|
| I'm confused.  We are talking about http://www.torjo.com/rangelib/?  I can't
| find any mention of the above "sub_range" in the zip I grabbed from that
| site.

yeah, sorry. sub_range is in boost.range, not in John's lib. But it dosn't
change anything, just think of
irange or ctange.

So again, what is the "net loss"?

| Don't know what you mean by "in terms of".  I'm thinking that we want
| algorithms to use ranges for interfaces, like the example I gave of
| "algorithm" above.  Internally, algorithm could use range if it is
| convenient, like if we could pass to rng::transform, but in general,
| iterators might be necessary.  Is this what you mean?

well, sort of. an underlying implementation in terms of iterators is always
necessary.

-Thorsten