Re: [boost] [boost.range] RFC on small updates

From: John Torjo (john.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-03 03:12:32

Hi Thorsten,

> 
> iterator_range:
> --------------
> 
> value_type& front() const;
> value_type& back() const;
> value_type& operator[]( size_type ) const;

I'm all for having these.

> value_type& at( size_type ) const;

I'm don't very much like having a throwing at() function.
But this comes from the fact that I don't like vector's at() either.

So, you can think of me as neutral on this one.

> 
> void advance( size_type );
> void narrow( size_type left, size_type right );

I don't like these. I think this is much easier accomplished with the 
freestanding functions.

> iterator_range& operator++();
> value_type& operator*() const;

I'm all for it :)
Out of curiosity, will you have ++pre and post++?

> 
> sub_range:
> ----------
> 

same as above

> 
> freestanding:
> ------------
> 
> iterator_range make_sub_range( range&, size_type left, size_type right = 0 );
> iterator_range make_super_range( range&, size_type left, size_type right = 
> 0 );
> iterator_range make_range( range&, difference_type left, difference_type right 
> = 0 );

Yup, I'm all for all ;) My favorite would be the last one, and I've been 
meaning to implement it myself for rangelib.

Best,
John

-- 
John Torjo,    Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
-- "Win32 GUI Generics" -- generics & GUI do mix, after all
-- http://www.torjo.com/win32gui/ -v1.6.3 (Resource Splitter)
-- http://www.torjo.com/cb/ - Click, Build, Run!