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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-04 09:53:02

Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> in some sence operator*() is provided by operator[]()... I guess
>> random access iterators will fit must use cases like strings. But
>> OTOH, I don't see how two functions (let's scrap advance) can hurt
>> at all, not even in a standardization context.
>
> 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.

Seconded.  Also, these operators are unsuitable for use in many generic
contexts.

Furthermore, can do all the same things with free functions that don't
intrude on the purity of the range "concept".  If you really like
these idioms,

  using namespace range_operators;

could be enough to make them available.

Cheers
-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com