From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-24 00:33:52
At Saturday 2005-04-23 19:46, you wrote:
>"Thorsten Ottosen" wrote:
> > Besides, boost.date_time I think these other libs are good candidates
> > (maybe
> > with slight modifications):
> > 2. optional
>This would be very useful addition.
>It would likely require update of algorithms, e.g. std::sort
>to deal with containers of optionals.
if we're going to consider updating any of the algorithms, why can't we
somehow update them all so that somealg(c.begin(), c.end(), morepossibleargs)
means exactly the same thing as:
More precisely, why don't all the algorithms additionally take ranges as
single args instead of pairs of iterators?
and then why isn't the name of a container equivalent to the range of all
Sufficiency of the current syntax is an uninteresting answer.
calling it "syntactic sugar" is likewise uninteresting as an answer.
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk