[boost] Re: Re: FOREACH / C++ "for" proposal

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-11 09:08:44

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:002001c55630$afeeaa00$6801a8c0_at_pdimov...
| Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
| > "Anthony Williams" <anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| > news:k6m6f12b.fsf_at_yahoo.com...
| >> "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
| >> fragile.
| >
| > 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++.

the meaning of

for( const auto& r : make_range( expr ) )

would also change depending on what overloads that are visible.

so I'm still not getting what "fragile" means.

-Thorsten