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

From: John Torjo (john.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-04 04:12:13

> 
> To put it bluntly, my point is that they are somebody's pet features
> (not necessarily yours, mind you), as opposite to functionality to
> support widely accepted, idiomatic usage. 'iterator_range' is too
> important to let it get greased with pet features.
> 

Perhaps Aleksey is right. Your iterator_range is a concept different 
from mine. For instance, allowing ++pre, could beg for post++, and then 
(for bidirectional ranges) for --, and so on. As well for -- and such. 
Also, offering operator* would beg for operator->

However, the way I see it, if rangelib makes it into boost, at a later 
time, we might be able to merge these two libs.

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!