[boost] Re: [boost.indirect container] RFC on interface changes

From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-08 14:51:08

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I'm working on getting the indirect container library (former smart
> container lib) ready for a post-review.
>
> During the review it was decided to provide overloads of
> assign(), insert() etc that takes a Range instead of two iterators.
>
> That is often a problem because of multiple overloads, that is,
> we get ambiguity. Basically I think we got two alternatives:
>
> 1.
> template< class Iter >
> void container::assign( const iterator_range<Iter>& );
> ...
> container c;
> c.assign( make_iterator_range( some_range ) );
>
> 2.
>
> template< class Range
> void container::assign_range( const Range& ):
> ....
> container c;
> c.assign_range( some_range );
>
> Which one do you prefer?

I definitely prefer "assign" to "assign_range". Could you say more explcitly
what the ambiguity would be if you try to make assign and insert to too much
work?

Jonathan