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

From: Pavol Droba (droba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-04 10:36:20

On Fri, Feb 04, 2005 at 09:53:02AM -0500, David Abrahams wrote:
> 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.
>

I absolutely agree with the above. I wouldn't be able to express it better.
iterator_range was designed as a minimal utility class from the beginning.

I consider these operations as a unnecessary feature bloat. The should not
be there.

Regards,

Pavol.