From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-11 09:08:44
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
| 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk