From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-06 08:00:30
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
> | > yes, but in return the library only has two provide one overload
> | ^^^-"to"
> | > of begin/end.
> | Meaning that you don't need a separate overload taking Seq const& just
> | to handle mutable rvalues. That's good. However, that benefit
> | doesn't depend on uglification. We could use the same old names; the
> | interface would just not be useful for mutable rvalues unless the 2nd
> | overload were provided.
> but now you introduce the ADL lookup problem again.
What is "the ADL lookup problem?"
> | Another point is that the whole iterator/const_iterator thing is
> | artificial and broken anyway. My work has evolved towards a "cursors
> | and property maps" arrangement where cursors encode position/traversal
> | and property maps encode access. In that scheme there's no difference
> | between the cursors used when traversing constant and mutable
> | containers. Of course, if you want to be able to get read access to a
> | non-const property map rvalue you may need two overloads for that
> | purpose.
> How would I traverse a range in that framework?
It depends whether the cursors are homogeneous (like iterators, the
usual case) or heterogeneous (a different type at each position). The
latter requires a recursive formulation; I won't go into it here
because it's not really relevant to what we're discussing. The former
for (begin_cursor<S>::type p = sequence::begin(s); p != finish; ++p)
In either case, elements are accessed via:
elements_type<S>::type e = sequence::elements(s); // the property map
value_type<S>::type v = e(p); // read
e(p,v); // write
> | We need to decide whether we're going to accept sub-optimal
> | designs or not. If we want to use standard iterators (for which
> | there are obvious positive arguments) we are forced into some
> | compromises that we wouldn't have to accept if using cursors,
> How does ADL lookup change in the new framework you're working on?
^ ^^^^^^----- redundant ;-)
Only that sequences will be providing begin(s) and not
uglified_begin(s). I was going with "uglified" names like
sequence_begin() until I thought harder about Thomas' argument and
considered the likelihood of bad collisions to be low.
> I don't see how it relates to the the proposed changes to
> boost.range which has as its main purpose to enable ADL lookup while
> using qualified notation.
It's related to the argument that you only have to provide one
overload of begin/end.
> | > |AFAICS there are two ways out of this
> | > |
> | > | a) X provides the unprefixed begin as well.
> | >
> | > how does that solve anything?
> | It allows clients of X to use it without boost.range. Go back and
> | read Peter Dimov's posts in this thread: http://tinyurl.com/55j7b
> | Shouldn't a Boost.Range-conformant range type be usable without the
> | dispatching functions in Boost.Range?
> well, for vector<int> v; you can use v.begin() etc. for pair<I,I> p, you
> can use p.first etc.
And what about a new range type that someone invents? Should they
really pick a different interface and not use something like the one
Boost.Range already provides for its ranges?
> So I don't think that makes much sense; boost.range is a
> framework---either you use it or you don't.
I repeat, go back and read Peter's posts in http://tinyurl.com/55j7b.
The framework ceases to own its concepts eventually.
-- 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