From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-11 08:52:27
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> "Anthony Williams" <anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>>> I think that the benefits of not having to include <iterator> and
>>>> confining this to a pure core extension not requiring library
>>>> support outweigh the costs.
>> Agreed. I like the idea of this being essentially a rewrite-rule. If
>> it calls free functions rather than member functions it starts to
>> depend on what headers have been included, which seems rather
> in what way is it fragile?
The meaning of the language construct for( type i: expr ) changes based on
what overloads are visible. This is relatively uncommon for C++.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk