[boost] Re: Iterator adaptors <-> boost::bind interaction

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (agurtovoy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-06-09 00:41:49

David Abrahams writes:
> Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>>> I would say transform_iterator should return by value by default and
>>> there should be an explicit notation to request by reference semantics
>>> (if applicable).
>>
>> David, any reply on the above? I'd like to come to some kind of
>> resolution on the outlined problem since it is real and hurting.
>
> I don't think there's much danger in transform_iterator itself, is
> there?  Isn't this all in make_transform_iterator?

Yes, it's in the 'make_transform_iterator's current semantics. I
should have phrased the above as

     I would say 'make_transform_iterator' should by default return a
     'transform_iterator' which 'operator*' always returns by value
     and there should be an explicit notation to request by reference
     semantics (if it's compatible with the transformation function's
     return type).

-- 
Aleksey Gurtovoy
MetaCommunications Engineering