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
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
using namespace range_operators;
could be enough to make them available.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk