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.
-- 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!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk