[boost] Re: range_result_iterator

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-03 11:12:39

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:uk6mga3yb.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
| "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
|
| > "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| > news:u1x8pceqw.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
| > |
| > | What is the rationale behind this name?  It seems unintuitive to
| > | me, and what's more, unneccessary.
| >
| > why?
|
| Unintuitive: it's not clear what The "result" part refers to.  It's
| such a generic word when applied to a (meta)function that it lacks
| obvious semantic content... it's almost like naming the max fucntion
| "result_of_max."

well, I think const_if_arg_is_const_mutable_otherwise_iterator<T>::type was 
considered.

ideas are welcome.

| >
| > | Shouldn't range_iterator<T const>::type just be
| > | range_const_iterator<T>::type?
| > |
| > | If not, why not?
| >
| > container::const_iterator is the parallel.
|
| That doesn't explain anything (to me).  What I was asking was: why
| provide this oddly-named metafunction when people could just make the
| inquiry using range_iterator with a const argument?

I guess the design could havebeen that way; but we don't say container< const 
T >::iterator to get container<T>::const_iterator.

-Thorten